Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook 2000

CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE�...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.�

DECENTRALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC LOCALGOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING HANDBOOK

May 2000

Technical Publication Series

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

TO ORDER THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

· Please reference the document title (Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance ProgrammingHandbook) and document identification number (PN-ACH-300).

· USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas mayorder documents at no charge.

· Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countriesmay order up to five titles at no charge.

· All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable,reproduction and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SERIESThe USAID Center for Democracy and Governance Technical Publication Series was launched in March1998. The series includes publications intended principally for USAID personnel; however, all personsinterested in the sector may benefit from the series. Authors of individual publications may be USAIDofficials and/or other individuals from the public and private sector. The Center for Democracy and Governancereserves the right to review and edit all publications for content and format and all are subject to a broadUSAID review process. The series is intended in part to indicate best practices, lessons learned, and guidelinesfor practitioner consideration. The series also includes publications that are intended to stimulate debate anddiscussion.

A list of other relevant publications and ordering information are included at the back of this document.

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATIONThis handbook serves as a practical guide to USAID officers who are faced with the task of developingprogram activities in the areas of decentralization and democratic local governance. Drawing on 15 years ofUSAID experience in democracy promotion and on four decades of municipal development work, thispublication provides a conceptual framework; guidance for choosing successful programming strategies,for selecting entry points and tactics in program design and implementation, and for mission monitoring andevaluation; and a discussion of key lessons learned and future programming issues.

Comments regarding this publication and inquiries regarding decentralization and democratic localgovernance should be directed to

Neil Levine, Team Leader Gary BlandGovernance Team Governance TeamTel: (202) 712-0121 Tel: (202) 712-1523Fax: (202) 216-3232 Fax: (202) [email protected] [email protected]

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and ResearchU.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, DC 20523-3100

More information, including electronic versions of the Center�s Technical Publication Series, is availablefrom the Center�s Intranet site at http://www.usaid.gov/G/DG/ and USAID�s democracy Internet site athttp://www.info.usaid.gov/democracy/

ABOUT THE CENTERThe Center for Democracy and Governance is the U.S. Agency for International Development�s focal pointfor democracy and governance programming. The Center�s role is to provide USAID and other developmentpractitioners with the technical and intellectual expertise needed to support democratic development. Itprovides this expertise in the following areas:

C Rule of LawC Elections and Political ProcessesC Civil SocietyC Governance

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

USAID�s Center for Democracy and Governance would like to acknowledge the work that its staff andthe contractor, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), devoted to the completion of this handbook. As thispublication was developed, through the various stages and drafts, many of the Center�s staff and the staffat RTI contributed their time, energy, and expertise to ensure that readers would have the best possibleproduct. RTI staff to whom we would like to extend a particular note of appreciation are listed, along withshort biographies, in the paragraphs below. We also received the valuable input and assistance of staff inother bureaus of the Agency, particularly the Office of Environment and Urban Programs in the GlobalEnvironment Center.

This handbook owes much to the outstanding work of Gary Bland. Gary, a Democracy Fellow who servesas advisor on decentralization and democratic local governance for the Center, developed the handbook�sconceptual and strategic approach and provided its clear, reader-friendly style. He holds a Ph.D. from theJohns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Prior to joining the Center, Garywas senior program associate at the Latin American program of the Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter for Scholars, where his research and writing focused on democratic development anddecentralization in Latin America.

Also deserving of special mention are Harry Blair and Pat Isman-Fn�Piere, who were involved with thehandbook from its inception; Jennifer Windsor, Jim Vermillion, and Diana Swain who made substantivecontributions during the final stages of the handbook�s completion; and our editor, Karen Farrell.

The Center would like to acknowledge those individuals in USAID�s Missions overseas and other donororganizations, as well as those among our implementing partners and host-country counterparts, withwhom we have had the privilege of working on this handbook and from whom we have learned so much.

C. Stark BiddleC. Stark Biddle holds an MBA from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.For over 35 years, he has provided policy analysis and management consulting services in both the publicand private sector in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe. Stark focuses ondemocracy and governance issues, strategic planning, budgeting, evaluation, and finance.

Rebecca GadellRebecca Gadell, a senior local government communications specialist at RTI, has worked in public andprivate sector communication, marketing, public relations, and technology for over 25 years. She workedwith communications and community involvement in several Texas municipalities to promote, fromwithin city hall, improved city services and citizen involvement. Since 1996, Becky, who is president-elect of the City-County Communications and Marketing Association, has worked in Ghana, Poland,Russia, and Bulgaria, where she served in the Local Government Initiative as deputy chief-of-party andresident advisor for communication and citizen participation.

Hal MinisHal Minis, a senior development planner at RTI, has worked on decentralization policy and localgovernment issues in the United States and abroad for the past 25 years. He served as resident director ofthe West Africa Municipal Management Training program from 1986 to 1988. Hal developed thegovernance strategy for USAID/Tunisia and subsequently was involved in the Local Government Supportproject to implement that strategy. He recently developed the West Africa Decentralization Dialogue, anInternet-based discussion among several West African countries and is assisting the USAID�s LocalGovernment Initiative in Bulgaria.

Julie Aberg RobisonJulie Aberg Robison is a public administration specialist with over 10 years experience in the design andimplementation of programs that strengthen national decentralization policy. As resident advisor for theCôte d�Ivoire Municipal Development Support project from 1991-1993, she worked with communities,elected officials, and service providers in 34 towns to improve services delivery and to promotedemocratic local decision-making. Julie recently completed a study on decentralization and local revenuegeneration in the Sahel, contributes to the Implementing Policy Change-Decentralization project inUganda, and is technical manager for the Local Government Finance Reform project in South Africa.

Al SharpAl Sharp is a senior public management specialist in RTI�s Center for International Development. He hasmore than 20 years of public management experience strengthening the performance of localgovernments, implementing enhanced inter-government relations, improving public financial practices,and increasing the level and effectiveness of citizen participation. Al headed the USAID-fundedMunicipal Finance and Management project in Moscow at its inception and, subsequently, was chief-of-party for the all-Russia program. His country experience also includes Bulgaria, Croatia, Paraguay,Romania, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

Jerry VanSantJerry VanSant is an MBA-trained management and organization specialist with 30 years experience as aline manager and consultant to private firms and government agencies in the United States and overseas.He has written on development issues, emphasizing issues of strategic planning, evaluation, managementand organizational performance, and development sustainability. In recent years, Jerry has focused onleadership and organizational renewal for agencies in the public sector and groups in civil society. From1990 to1998, he directed RTI�s Center for International Development. Currently, Jerry is a visitingprofessor at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University.

James WunschJames Wunsch is chair of the Department of Political Science and International Studies at Creighton Universityand founder of the African Studies program at Creighton University. In addition to his faculty responsibilities,James has consulted for governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as in the United States. Hespecializes in democracy and governance, local government, decentralization, inter-governmental relations,and civil society. James has substantive experience in project evaluation, policy analysis, training, and projectdevelopment and design.

Research Triangle Institute (RTI)Founded in 1958, Research Triangle Institute is an independent, nonprofit organization that serves clientsin government, industry, academia, and public service throughout the United States and abroad. Theinstitute conducts research and development and provides technical services in five major areas: advancedtechnologies, environment, health and pharmaceuticals, public policy, and survey and statistics.

DECENTRALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC LOCALGOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING HANDBOOK

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5

A. Current Trends .................................................................................................................... 5B. Definitions and Key Clarifications ..................................................................................... 6C. Participatory Program Approach ........................................................................................ 8D. Handbook Organization ..................................................................................................... 8

II. SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMMING ............................................................................................ 11

A. Effective Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance ....................................... 11B. Building Successful Programs.......................................................................................... 13

III. ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 15

A. Fundamental Concepts ..................................................................................................... 16B. An Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................... 21C. Programming Implications ............................................................................................... 22D. Other Considerations ........................................................................................................ 27

IV. DEFINING PROGRAMMING STRATEGY ........................................................................... 29

A. Options for Strategic Focus .............................................................................................. 29B. Programming Considerations ........................................................................................... 32

V. SELECTING ENTRY POINTS AND TACTICS ..................................................................... 35

A. Identifying the Entry Point ............................................................................................... 35B. Selecting Program Tactics ................................................................................................ 43

VI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...................................................................................... 51

A. Performance Monitoring .................................................................................................. 51B. Performance Evaluation ................................................................................................... 51C. Performance Indicators .................................................................................................... 53D. Setting Targets and Measuring Results ............................................................................ 54

VII. LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................. 61

VIII. PROGRAMMING ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 65

REFERENCES

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This handbook serves as a practical guide to USAID officers who are faced with the task of developingprogram activities in the areas of decentralization and democratic local governance. At a time whendecentralization and democratic local governance have become global interests of public policy andprogram priorities of USAID and many other donors, this publication�drawing on 15 years of USAIDexperience in democracy promotion and on four decades of municipal development work�provides

� A conceptual framework designed to support assessment of a mission�s prospects for programming indecentralization and/or democratic local governance

� Guidance, based largely on USAID experience, for choosing successful programming strategies

� Guidance and examples for selecting entry points and tactics in program design and implementation

� Guidance and examples for mission monitoring and evaluation of decentralization and localgovernance activities

� Discussion of key lessons learned and future programming issues in decentralization and thestrengthening of democratic local governance

� Bibliographic and web site references for democracy and governance (DG) officers who wish toexamine these issues in greater depth

This publication aims to help DG officers decide if, when, and how to initiate or enhance programs indecentralization and democratic local governance. It is intended as a subsector-specific follow-up to theCenter for Democracy and Governance�s Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for StrategyDevelopment (Advance Copy) [December 1999]. The Center also hopes that it will enhance awarenessand engender productive debate about the dynamics of decentralization and democratic local governancein host countries and about the ways USAID can most effectively focus its interventions.

The following pages provide myriad programming possibilities, country experiences, and a host ofadditional resources to assist USAID officers. It is the Center�s hope that, with the aid of this handbook,officers will be much better prepared to determine where the greatest opportunities for change lie; if,when, and where to begin programming; what activities offer the best prospects for results; and how todesign and implement an effective performance monitoring system for decentralization and democraticlocal governance programming.

Decentralization and Democratic Local GovernanceThe handbook is a testament to the Center�s recognition of decentralization and the development ofdemocratic local governance as fundamentally political processes. Absent a clear understanding of thehost country�s national and local politics and of the import of USAID activities within that politicalcontext, decentralization and democratic local governance programming will undoubtedly be lesssuccessful. Thus, the handbook begins by developing the conceptual framework.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook2

Decentralization and democratic local governance are defined by the Center as follows:

Decentralization is a process of transferring power to popularly elected local governments. Transferringpower means providing local governments with greater political authority (e.g., convene local elections orestablish participatory processes), increased financial resources (e.g., through transfers or greater taxauthority), and/or more administrative responsibilities.

Democratic local governance is the process of governing democratically at the local level, viewedbroadly to include not only the machinery of government, but also the community at-large and itsinteraction with local authorities. (Use of the term �local� refers to all subnational levels of government.)

When effective decentralization and democratic local governance advance in tandem, localgovernments�and the communities they govern�gain the authority, resources, and skills to makeresponsive choices and to act on them effectively and accountably. Advancing the capacity of localgovernments to act effectively and accountably requires promoting the desire and capacity of civilsociety organizations and individual citizens to take responsibility for their communities, participate inlocal priority-setting, assist in the implementation of those decisions, and then monitor their effectiveness.

A Three-phase Program Planning ProcessIn an effort to be as clear as possible, this handbook applies a three-phase approach for decentralizationand democratic local governance planning. It recommends that DG officers, first, assess the environmentfor decentralization and democratic local governance activities. Second, with the help of the assessment,the program officer should define a strategy that targets the greatest opportunity. Third, the officer willneed to select programming tactics.

STEP ONE: Assessing the EnvironmentThe question of the environment, or country context, is a prime consideration in determining whether tobegin or extend decentralization or democratic local governance programming. The handbook takes DGofficers through an assessment methodology based on two key criteria: the extent of political will todecentralize and the local governance tradition of the host country. The two terms are defined as follows:

Political will is the level of commitment that the country�particularly, but not exclusively, nationalgovernment leaders�demonstrates to decentralization and the development of democratic localgovernance.

Local governance tradition is the developing country�s degree of decentralization and the effectivenessand responsiveness of its formal local government institutions to the community at-large.

With the guidance provided in this handbook, the DG officer or any partner can determine the degree ofpolitical will and the strength of the country�s tradition of local governance. As the handbooksubsequently points out, each country�s combination of political will and local governance traditioncarries general programming implications. In a country with strong political will to change and a weaklocal governance tradition, for example, the programming environment can be considered excellentbecause the desire to reform is coupled with a system in which there are many areas that need work. Theassessment process gives officers a clearer idea of the prospects for the success of program activities inthis area and of the level at which the mission should intervene. Conducting the assessment provides,


moreover, a wealth of information and insight for the subsequent strategic and tactical stages ofprogramming. The handbook also provides a number of country examples of USAID experiences wherecombinations of political will and local governance tradition vary widely.

STEP TWO: Defining Programming StrategyTo define a strategy, once it is determined that a decentralization and democratic local governanceprogram has merit for a country, DG officers will need to address the central question: Given limitedresources, in how many of three focus areas should USAID strategically intervene to maximize its impacton the development of a democratic local system of government? Strategy options are organizedaccording to the areas of strategic focus:

1) Creating a favorable enabling environment: The objective is to encourage the national government toenact and implement an effective decentralization initiative, including regularly convening free and fairlocal elections. These activities are focused primarily at the national level of government, although theyalso address the ability of local government to represent their interests in the national capital.

2) Developing democratic local governance: The objective is to assist local government and communityefforts to create local government that operates in a more responsive, accountable, participatory, andincreasingly effective�or more democratic�manner. These activities are primarily focused on the locallevel.

3) Building local government capacity: The objective is to help local governments perform better,primarily by improving their ability to deliver public services and their financial standing. These activitiesare primarily focused on the local level.

In this section, the handbook presents a variety of programming options and the strategic considerationsassociated with each. DG officers are asked to consider, for example, the level(s) of government at whichprogramming is most likely to succeed (depending on available resources), prospects for success, andother factors. Officers are also called on to consider their ability to capitalize on openings within thenational government, the particular value of democratic local governance activities, and activities with aninter-governmental impact, such as support for local government associations. A series of questions aimedat stimulating strategic discussion for each of the three focus areas is also provided.

STEP THREE: Selecting Entry Points and TacticsNext, the DG officer must select the tactics�or tools�that match USAID�s comparative advantages witha country�s best prospects for change. In this stage, DG officers will choose from among many possibleoptions to ensure impact and sustain program efforts.

The program officer is asked to consider the program entry point(s), which is the initial programmingopportunity�the strategic doorway�that will allow the mission to anchor its program and optimizeoverall impact. Ideally, the entry point offers a tangible focus for both local attention and donorassistance. In the Philippines, for example, where reform of the local government law was underconsideration, the mission chose support for policy reform at the national level as an entry point.

The handbook subsequently describes a series of potential programming tools from which the DG officermay wish to choose. The list of tools is organized according to the three strategic focus areas anddiscussion centers on the objectives and potential drawbacks associated with each tactic.


Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Lessons Learned, and Key Issues in ProgrammingA number of issues, if adequately addressed, can greatly improve programming in decentralization anddemocratic local governance. Performance monitoring and evaluation, of course, help the DG officerdetermine whether programming is achieving the desired results. This handbook provides considerabledetail on how to monitor and evaluate decentralization and democratic local governance programming inparticular. It provides �do�s and don�ts,� information on how to use performance information, and sampleindicators and target scales in each of the three strategic focus areas.

Major lessons learned from USAID�s years of experience in decentralization and democratic localgovernance programming are detailed. These lessons are coupled with several examples of missionprogramming that serve to demonstrate the relevant lesson learned. By taking these lessons into account,DG officers may be able to avoid the pitfalls of the past.

The final section of the handbook provides a list and supporting discussion of major programming issuesfor the future. These issues address a variety of critical concerns, from decentralization�s potentialdisadvantages to program design, that are likely to arise in any country. How to resolve these concerns iscertainly not clear. By raising these issues, the handbook gives USAID officers a broader understandingand a more forward-looking perspective on decentralization and democratic local governanceprogramming. The Center also seeks to engage the field in a dialogue to gain a better understanding of itsexperiences in these areas.

Although this handbook is specifically directed toward DG officers, the Center seeks to advocate aparticipatory program planning approach throughout so as to engage a wide variety of mission and host-country stakeholders. Finally, and most important, this handbook represents an effort to help USAIDofficers develop successful programming activities in decentralization and democratic local governance.The publication is not the final word on this topic, nor will all the ideas and advice provided in thesepages apply to every country in which USAID has a mission: Developing a handbook to cover the greatdiversity of country situations inevitably leads to a level of generalization. We do hope, however, that thisproduct proves valuable to program officers in USAID Missions across the globe.


I. INTRODUCTION

A. Current Trends

Decentralization and the development ofdemocratic local governance continue quietly tosweep the world. From Bolivia to Bulgaria, andfrom West Africa to South Asia, a wide varietyof countries are increasing the authority of localgovernments and working to make them moreresponsive and effective.

The prime motivations behind these reformsvary. Some countries are emerging fromdictatorships seeking to disperse power amongsmaller governmental units. Others are reducingthe size of the central government as part of atransition to a more efficient market economy.Many others seek to increase public involvementand accountability in government decision-making. Where one country is responding todonor pressures for popular reform, another ishoping that the poor performance of the nationalgovernment can be overcome by allowing localgovernments to provide fundamentally localpublic services.

Even where democratic development is not acentral consideration, in those countries wheregenuine reform has occurred, there are openingsfor continued democratic change.

According to Western liberal tradition,decentralization promotes democracy in myriadways. By bringing government closer to citizens,decentralization allows people to participatemore effectively in local affairs, includingidentification of community priorities. Localleaders can be held increasingly accountable fordecisions that affect citizens� lives. Citizens andtheir elected leaders gain experience in thepractice of democracy.

Decentralization signifies the dispersion ofcentral government power, increased

opportunities for responsive leaders orpreviously marginalized groups to enter politics,and increased attention to local concerns. Withdecentralization, local decisions can be tailoredto local needs, allowing scarce resources to begenerated and expended with greater efficiencyand public services to be provided moreeffectively. Taken together, as local governmentperformance improves, these changes canenhance the legitimacy of the democraticsystem.

Decentralization is by no means always apositive experience. The process carries anumber of potential disadvantages as well. It canproduce territorial inequality as wealthylocalities take advantage of their new autonomyto push further ahead of low-income areas.Increased local authority may in somecommunities allow elites to dominate localpolitics. Decentralization can threaten territorialintegrity if it gives rise to separatist demandsand, especially when financial oversight of localofficials is weak, it can lead to increasedcorruption. Local service delivery maydeteriorate where financial and administrativecapacity is weak. Further discussion of potentialdisadvantages can be found in Section VIII onprogramming issues.

Reflecting the extraordinary trend towarddecentralization, USAID is working to varyingdegrees in some 50 countries to promotedecentralization and to help communities takeadvantage of opportunities to improvedemocratic local governance.

In decades past, the Agency focused onimproving local public administration,strengthening local credit or financial systems,and supporting urban development. These issuescontinue to receive close attention, but theAgency�s approach has broadened. USAIDtoday strongly emphasizes the pro-democraticand political aspects of decentralization andlocal governance programming. The Center for


Democracy and Governance in particular isexplicitly concerned with decentralization as apolitical process and with its impact on anation�s democratic development.

As countries decentralize and call on their localgovernments to respond to their communitiesand to more effectively deliver services, USAIDasks: �How can we improve the democraticsystem through our support for decentralizationreforms?�

This handbook is a practical guide fordemocracy and governance (DG) officers whomust decide if, when, and how to program fordecentralization and democratic localgovernance. In publishing this handbook, theCenter provides DG officers and theirimplementing partners with the following:

� A fundamental conceptual framework forunderstanding decentralization anddemocratic local governance concepts

� A means of generally assessing a country�sprospects for decentralization and improveddemocratic local governance

� A variety of programming strategies, tactics,evaluation techniques, and lessons gatheredfrom worldwide experience

The Center hopes this handbook will helpUSAID programming produce desired,sustainable results.

B. Definitions and Key Clarifications

1. Definitions

Understanding what �decentralization� and�democratic local governance� are is essential toeffective DG programming in these areas. Forthe purposes of this handbook, the two, distinctterms are defined as follows:

a. Decentralization

Decentralization is a process of transferringpower to popularly elected local governments. Itbrings about change in the operation ofinstitutions and almost invariably occursgradually. Decentralization requires theexistence of elected local governments becauselocal officials do not have meaningful autonomyunless they answer to their constituents.Appointed local officials must ultimately actaccording to the interests of those in the nationalcapital who gave them their jobs; they areeffectively agents of the national government. Alocal system in which government officials areappointed, then, is a centralized system that hasnot begun to decentralize.

It should be noted there are a variety ofdefinitions of decentralization. One often-useddefinitional framework is drawn from theeconomic development or publicadministration�as opposed to democracy�literature. This approach recognizes three typesof decentralization: devolution, deconcentration,and delegation. In the past, USAID reliedheavily on this formulation.

Devolution is closest to the term we consider, inthis handbook, decentralization. Formally,devolution is the creation or increased relianceupon subnational levels of government, withsome degree of political autonomy, that aresubstantially outside direct central governmentcontrol yet subject to general policies and laws,such as those regarding civil rights and rule oflaw.

Deconcentration is the transfer of power to anadministrative unit of the central government,usually a field or regional office. Withdeconcentration, local officials are not elected.

Delegation is the transfer of managerialresponsibility for a specifically defined functionoutside the usual central government structure.


b. Local governance

Local governance is governing at the local levelviewed broadly to include not only themachinery of government, but also thecommunity at-large and its interaction withlocal authorities.

c. Democratic local governance

Democratic local governance is, in turn, localgovernance carried out in a responsive,participatory, accountable, and increasinglyeffective (i.e., democratic) fashion.

Decentralization gives the local governancesystem the opportunity to become increasinglydemocratic. It helps position local officials towork for the benefit of the community at-large.Without decentralization, the development ofdemocratic local governance is much moredifficult.

As decentralization opens avenues for thedevelopment of democratic local governance,local governments gain the authority, resources,and skills; make responsive choices with citizeninput; and operate effectively and accountably.

2. Clarifications

The above short definitional framework isperhaps clear enough, but a deeperunderstanding of these concepts requires furtherelaboration. The following clarifications ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance are provided with the hope that theynot only complement the points made above,but also highlight the close link between the twoconcepts.

a. Decentralization is about power and is,therefore, a fundamentally political process.

Specifically, decentralization is about handingpower over to the local level, typically from the

central government. And neither individuals norinstitutions relinquish power easily. Largely forthis reason, then, decentralization is a long,usually difficult, process that requiresextraordinary incentive to enact and implement.It is invariably subject to fits and starts asproponents and opponents maneuver foradvantage in what is frequently a major nationaldebate.

b. Decentralization has three dimensions:political, financial, and administrative.

These three dimensions, in essence, representthe primary components of power. The politicaldimension (often referred to as �political�decentralization) involves the transfer ofpolitical authority to the local level through theestablishment or reestablishment of elected localgovernment (perhaps as part of a democratictransition), electoral reform, political partyreform, authorization of participatory processes,and other reforms.

The financial dimension (often referred to as�financial� or �fiscal� decentralization) refers tothe shifting of financial power to the local level.It involves increasing or reducing conditions onthe inter-governmental transfer of resources andgiving jurisdictions greater authority to generatetheir own revenue.

The administrative dimension (often referred toas �administrative� decentralization) involvesthe full or partial transfer of an array offunctional responsibilities to the local level, suchas health care service, the operation of schools,the management of service personnel, thebuilding and maintenance of roads, and garbagecollection.

Progress along any of these dimensions isdecentralization. Decentralization tends to bestrongest, however, when real politicalautonomy, sufficient administrativeresponsibility, and the financial resources to


carry out primary functions appear at or aretransferred to the local level together.

Decentralization is as if local officials are beingtold by the central government: �Here are theareas in which you must now work, and here ishow you will get the resources needed toactually do the work. And from now on you areresponsible to your community for the resultsyou produce.� Under these conditions,democratic local governance has the best chanceto emerge.

c. Decentralization is about potential; itguarantees nothing.

Whether or not decentralization actuallypromotes democratic local governance in aparticular country context is an open question.On the other hand, the impact of decentralizationreforms can be positive for democracyregardless of how the reforms come into being.

d. The context for decentralization varies withevery country.

As is the case with many DG issues, situationsvary greatly even between neighboring countrieswith similar politics and cultures. Although thereare general similarities, every country in theworld faces a unique combination of issues.What works in one country may not work or bepolitically feasible in any other.

e. In this handbook, �local� refers to all levelsof subnational government in a country.

Although most countries contain multiple levelsof government�from regions and provinces tostates, cantons, and other variations�for thesake of clarity, this handbook includes them allunder a single term, �local.�

f. How democratic local governance actuallyoperates reflects the country�s own politicalhistory and culture.

Each country develops its own local democraticsystem. The political processes used vary greatlyaccording to custom (i.e., a public meeting inPoland is not the same as a public meeting inBolivia), but the broader goal�localdemocracy�remains the same.

g. Effective decentralization is a key tool forstrengthening democracy.

Strengthening democracy at the local level canhelp strengthen democracy in the nation as awhole. It can help define the role of governmentand clarify the relationship between governmentand citizens.

C. Participatory Program Approach

Although this handbook is specifically directedtoward DG officers, it encourages participatoryapproaches that engage all areas of missionactivity and host-country stakeholders. Theselected case studies aim to provide participatoryprogram models from varied contexts.

D. Handbook Organization

This handbook contains eight sections, the firstof which is this introduction to decentralizationand democratic local governance. Section II isan effort to describe USAID�s ultimateprogramming objective: the ideal decentralizedsystem of democratic local governance. Thissection helps one consider, in general terms,what success really means. It then moves toproviding the three central questions that USAIDDG officers need to answer in building asuccessful decentralization and democratic localgovernance program. These address issues ofassessment, strategy, and tactics.


The subsequent three sections demonstrate howthe answers to the questions posed abovebecome the basis for the three stages ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance programming: assessment, strategy,and tactics. Section III provides a model forconducting a general assessment of the prospectsfor decentralization programming. Section IVprovides several of the key strategicconsiderations. Section V provides a wide rangeof programming tools from which officers canchoose when developing their activities.

The final three sections discuss, respectively,monitoring and evaluation of programming indecentralization and democratic localgovernance; some of the key lessons of USAIDexperience; and several of the programmingissues that have emerged and bear considerationfor the future. Effective monitoring andevaluation and learning from the experience willimprove programming results. Discussingprogramming issues will broaden ourunderstanding in this area and guide our agendafor future technical leadership.

The handbook concludes with a list ofbibliographic and web site references. These willprovide the reader with additional academic,programming, policy-related, and electronicresources in this subject area.


II. SUCCESSFULPROGRAMMING

In order to design and implement successfulprograms for decentralization and democraticlocal governance, it is important to understandwhat goals are being aimed for, and to workstrategically to meet them. This section firstpresents the chief characteristics of successfuldecentralization and democratic localgovernance in an ideal scenario. It thenintroduces a three-phase programming processthat USAID DG officers can rely on to achieveeffective decentralization and democratic localgovernance. Each phase of the process is moreexplicitly discussed in subsequent sections.

A. Effective Decentralization andDemocratic Local Governance

To be successful at promoting the developmentof democratic local governance, we must firstthink hard about what effective decentralizationand good local governance might look like.What characteristics do we want to see in adeveloping system? What is the ideal?

Of course, major changes do not occurovernight, and each country context is somewhatdistinct. Moreover, generalizing across all thecountries of the world and across their variedpolitical histories and cultures is by no means anexact process. The following should not,therefore, be viewed as a single goal for allcountries to reach. Indeed, each country willmove forward on its own terms. Nonetheless,with the aim clarifying our basic programmingobjectives, we present the main characteristics ofeffective decentralization, democratic localgovernance, and effective local governmentcapacity.

1. Effective Decentralization

In an ideal scenario, the national governmenthas shifted a significant measure of newauthority to the local level. The government hasclearly demonstrated the political will todecentralize. Reforms to the constitution or legalcode have been enacted. These reforms,moreover, are being implemented in accordancewith the law or at least in a gradual but steadyfashion in response to the new legal mandates orregulations.

In the ideal political realm, as required by law,the chief executive (i.e., the mayor) and localcouncil are regularly elected by the localpopulace. The country may be electing localofficials for the first time and, if so, the electionsare run as openly and fairly as possible. Thepolitical party system allows the participation oflocal citizen groups and independents and,therefore, the development of pluralisticrepresentation. Local officials are, moreover,accorded authority to pass laws or other legalnorms on local affairs. New communityleadership is able to emerge. Local governmentshave the authority to design and useparticipatory mechanisms to receive communityinput. Citizen access to governmental authoritiesand decision-making processes is legallyprotected through, for example, access to publicdocuments.

In the administrative area, under the idealscenario the central government is granting localgovernment clearly defined responsibilities thatsignificantly concern communities and generatepublic interest in local affairs. Localgovernments are being accorded functions offundamentally local scope. Local governmentsare doing more than merely cleaning streets;they are taking on a variety of non-traditionalservice responsibilities, such as assuring primaryhealth care, basic education, public security,public utilities, environmental protection, andbuilding regulation.


In the financial realm, the central government istaking action to ensure that the local system hasaccess to the resources to match its newfunctions. This is occurring through increased(or less conditioned) inter-governmentaltransfers and/or according local governmentsnew local revenue-raising authority. Centralgovernment officials also demonstrate increasedconcern for the development of locallygenerated revenue, for preventing inefficient orcorrupt use of new local resources, and forfinding alternative means, such as creditmarkets, for local governments to securefinancing.

2. Democratic Local Governance

Where local governance is democratizing, localgovernments are increasingly responsive to andinteractive with the community. They are moreparticipatory, transparent, and accountable tolocal residents. Services are increasinglyprovided in response to citizen demand andpriorities.

Regular local elections�or electoralaccountability�are at the heart of this process.Participatory governance, which may rely onmechanisms such as town and interest groupmeetings, hearings, and community involvementin budgeting and planning, is becomingcustomary. The local public, including the newsmedia, has ready access to documents. Citizensare generally informed and provide input intokey local decisions directly at public meetings,perhaps through surveys, occasional referenda,or other means. Civil society groups, reflectingthe composition of the community, interactregularly with local authorities. Residents tendto participate voluntarily in neighborhoodimprovements. In short, citizens generallyparticipate in decisions that affect their qualityof life.

Ultimately, local leaders recognize they mayjeopardize their political careers if they dismiss

the community consensus. Ideally, a collectivecivic consciousness develops and the progress ofthe community as a whole�as opposed to localelites, business interests, or political cronies�becomes paramount.

3. Effective Local Government Capacity

Effective local governments have the technicalknow-how, capacity, and financial resources tosustain the delivery of local public services atlevels satisfactory to citizens. They learn fromexperience and they are able to get things done.

Although progress on capacity can be measuredalong many fronts, two key points should bekept in mind:

� To a large extent, communities willmeasure the success of local democracyby the local government�s ability toimprove the quality of their lives; that is,by its ability to address perceived socialneeds and provide or improve basicpublic services.

� Local governments� ability to perform istightly restricted when financialresources are insufficient to meet theirprimary functions and when significantrevenue is lost to waste and corruption.

Ideally, therefore, the development of localcapacity would be producing better-trainedpersonnel, including more professionals engagedin local government operations. In an effectivelocal government, staff members are no longerpredominantly unqualified appointees named toappease party loyalists but, rather, increasinglywell-educated public servants committed to theprogress of their community. With staff careersbecoming stable, the local government is able toengage in more long-term strategic planning,management, and policymaking.


In the ideal scenario, the local financial positionis strengthening with increasing capacity. Localgovernments regularly receive appropriate inter-governmental fiscal transfers to support work inwhich the national government has an interest,yet is also increasingly collecting revenuelocally to support purely local functions. Localrevenue generation has significantly increasedthe community�s interest in and oversight ofhow its funds are spent. As accountabilityincreases, resource-strapped jurisdictionscontinually work to use their resources moreefficiently, gain access to credit mechanisms,and develop alternative funding sources.

As local capacity strengthens, local officials areassuring improved delivery of public services,especially in critical areas such as health careand education. They may employ new orinnovative approaches, including public-privatepartnerships, proactive participation indevelopment programs with the nationalgovernment or donors, and contracting out forservices. Most importantly, the general publicreadily recognizes the real advances that havebeen made.

B. Building Successful Programs

Buttressed by an understanding ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance in an ideal scenario, we need to lookat how to transition to establishing strategicgoals for a particular country program and todevelop programs to meet these goals. In doingso, three primary questions must be answered.The first deals with the country assessment andasks if USAID should begin, or continue,programming decentralization and democraticlocal governance activities in a particularcountry. The second addresses the programstrategy. It examines in which of three key areasUSAID should strategically intervene tomaximize impact on democratic development,given limited resources and a determination thatdecentralization and democratic localgovernance is an appropriate assistance area.The third focuses on ways to achieve strategicobjectives and asks what are the availableprogramming options and how USAID DGofficers choose among them to ensure impactand to sustain program efforts.

Question #1: AssessmentShould USAID begin (or con-tinue) programming decentraliza-tion and democratic local gover-nance activities in the country?Answering this question is theessence of the first�or assess-ment�phase.

Question #2: StrategyGiven limited resources and adetermination that decentraliza-tion and democratic local gover-nance is an appropriate assistancearea, in which of the three key ar-eas�the enabling environment,democratic local governance,and/or local government capac-ity�should USAID strategicallyintervene to maximize impact ondemocratic development? An-swering this question is at theheart of the second�or strategydevelopment�phase.

Question #3: TacticsWhat are the available program-ming options and how do USAIDofficers choose among them toensure impact and to sustain pro-gram efforts? Answering thisquestion is at the core of thethird�or tactical�phase.

FIGURE 1: Questions for the Three-phase Programming Process


These questions, found in Figure 1, provide thefoundation for the three-phase programmingprocess that is developed in this handbook. Inthe following sections, we provide a model forassessing the country context fordecentralization and democratic localgovernance programming, raise key strategyconsiderations, and provide a range of tacticalresponses designed to help DG officers makeinformed judgments and design successful,results-oriented programs.


III. ASSESSING THEENVIRONMENT

The question of context is a criticalconsideration in determining whether a USAIDMission begins decentralization or democraticlocal governance activities in a country.1

Effective programming requires a fullunderstanding of the environment within whichan intervention is proposed.

For a country under review, we must answer thefollowing question: In country X, should USAIDbegin (or continue) programmingdecentralization and democratic localgovernance activities?

This section provides a methodology forconducting an assessment of any countryenvironment. Because this methodology hasbeen devised to apply to any country in theworld, it is necessarily a general approach. Itsimply cannot directly address all of the detailsof every national experience; it does not answerall the questions that can emerge. Yet, by relyingon two fundamental criteria�political will andlocal governance tradition�this approach doesprovide the basis for a thorough examination ofthe potential for decentralization and democraticlocal governance programming.

The simplicity of this methodology is not meantto suggest that conducting an assessment is aneasy or quick task. Considerable time,information collection, analysis, understanding,and considered judgement must be brought tobear. A wide-ranging series of key issues must

be addressed as well. We bring out many ofthese issues in the following pages.

Once complete, the assessment should helpofficers determine a few key elements:

� The extent to which programming in thisarea is likely to succeed, which is a keyconsideration in deciding how toallocate scarce resources

� The depth, at least initially, of USAIDinvolvement, assuming the decision tointervene has been made

In a country where the environment is poor, forexample, there may be no reason to initiate aprogram because there is little chance thatdecentralization will be instituted, that localgovernance can progress democratically, or thata stronger national democratic system willresult. Or, if there is some chance of success inthese areas, perhaps a minimal involvementwould be best initially, pending futuredevelopments. In short, as will be discussed insubsequent sections, the assessment of countrycontext will feed into the development of astrategy and tactics.

In considering a program strategy, the USAIDofficer must, to a great extent, accept theexisting country circumstances as they have aneffect on decentralization and the developmentof democratic local governance. Thosecircumstances�the environment in which wefind ourselves�may be highly favorable in onecountry and, for a variety of reasons, dismal inanother. Another country environment may be inthe middle range, or somewhat favorable todecentralization and local governanceprogramming. It is important to note that thereare as many possible scenarios as there arecountries.

1 For a discussion of decentralization and democraticlocal governance programming as part of a broader DGstrategy, see Gerald F. Hyman, Conducting a DGAssessment: A Framework for Strategy Development(Advance Copy), Technical Publication Series(Washington, DC: USAID/Center for Democracy andGovernance, December 1999).


A. Fundamental Concepts

Assessing the environment requiresconsideration of two fundamental concepts:

� Political will

� Local governance tradition

Examined together, these two concepts paint aclear picture of the current country environment.The following discussion and guidelines areaimed at helping DG officers examine the stateof political will and local governance tradition intheir host countries.

1. Assessing Political Will

Political will is the level of commitment acountry demonstrates�particularly, but notexclusively, its national government leaders�todecentralization and the development of localgovernment. The degree of political will can beviewed along a continuum ranging from strongto moderate to weak.

Strong political will is generally characterizedby

� A clearly stated desire to reform by thegovernment and key non-governmentalactors

� Enactment of laws (constitutional,regulatory, or otherwise) to carry outthose reforms

� Implementation of the laws

Weak political will is generally characterized by

� Lip service given to the need for andimportance of decentralization

� Vested interest in the status quo bygovernment and other key actors

� Little or no promulgation of lawsgranting authority and resources to localgovernment

� Virtually no implementation of laws thatmay have been passed

In assessing political will, the DG officer mightconsider the following question: Why are we, asa part of the USAID Mission, consideringdecentralization or democratic local governmentprogramming at this particular time? The answeris likely to be a telling sign of the host country�sdesire to reform.

Examination of political will requiresconsideration of a variety of indicators of acountry�s interest or potential interest indecentralization and the development ofdemocratic local governance. Table 1 provides anumber of sample questions that would can beuseful in this regard. The answers will giveconsiderable insight into the level of politicalwill in a country.

It is important to emphasize that assessingpolitical will is a subjective exercise, the resultof an in-depth analysis that is best madefollowing an examination of as many of therelevant factors as possible. There is no single,correct answer, and two people can easilydisagree after examining the same set ofcircumstances. Moreover, political will tends tobe a momentary phenomenon. It can suddenlyshift for a variety of reasons, such as a change ingovernment leadership.

Nonetheless, guidelines for assessing politicalwill can be developed. The following guidelinesmay reflect general tendencies; they may applyto some countries more than others. Yet theyprove helpful to DG officers who must makesuch an effort:


Strong Political WillIF you are considering programming activity

because the national government has passedimportant reforms and is seeking assistancein implementing them...

THEN the level of political will is probablystrong, although you should continuallyassess the degree to which implementationactually occurs. The presumption here isthat governments generally enact new lawswith the intent to implement them.

Moderate Political WillIF you are considering programming activity

because the ruling government or partycoalition is reformist�looking tomodernize politically and economically inthe midst of a transition from a totalitarianor authoritarian regime...

THEN the degree of political will is probably atleast moderate, especially if decentralizationor local governance is already on the policyagenda. Today, decentralization is viewedinternationally as integral to statemodernization. The national government islikely to respond favorably to externalprograms.

IF you are considering programming activitybecause the ruling government or partycoalition has some political or economicstake in decentralization and indeedrecognizes it as such...

THEN the level of political will is likely to be atleast moderate. Governments often takeaction if they view such action to be in theirown interest. Under this condition,persuading them to move ahead is mucheasier.

Moderate to Weak Political WillIF you are considering programming activity

largely because donors are pressuring thenational government to decentralize foreconomic or political reasons...

THEN the level of political will is likely to bemoderate to weak. Countries may seek toplease donors to the minimal extent possibleto obtain donor financial support orpresence.

IF you are considering programming activitybecause a new, formerly opposition, nationalgovernment is coming into power in acountry where important decentralization,such as constitutional reform, waspreviously instituted...

THEN political will is likely to be moderate toweak. Often new governments seek todistinguish themselves politically from theirpredecessors and, thus, may opposedecentralization or even attempt to reverseit. The political relationship between thenew and preceding government is critical inthis case.

IF you are considering programming activitybecause local government leaders, orperhaps a minister or members of thelegislature, are pushing or interested inpushing for decentralization reforms�

THEN the level of political will is likely to bemoderate to weak, depending on the lobby�sstrength. Especially in a centralized system,the decision to decentralize will ultimatelycome from the central government.Convincing national leaders to transfer someof their power to the local level would likelyrequire a favorable context and/or a strongincentive for doing so.

IF you are considering programming activitybecause new or historic local elections areforthcoming, but have been repeatedlydelayed...

THEN the level of political will is probablymoderate to weak. There is a reason for thedelay, most probably a lack of consensusamong the political establishment for suchreform. This situation may well continue forsome time.


TABLE 1: Questions for Assessing Political Will

� Is decentralization a top political priority? If so, why? Who are its primary advocatesor opponents (executive branch, legislature, local officials, etc.)?

� Was the decision to begin decentralizing broadly based?� Is there broad support for or opposition to decentralization among various political

parties? Other elite or powerful groups?

� Is the commitment to decentralization rooted in stated doctrine of the dominantpolitical coalition?

� Are there key and influential central government personnel who have taken apersonal, strong, and favorable interest in the proposed decentralization initiatives?

� Are there key and influential central government personnel who have taken apersonal, strong, and unfavorable view of the proposed initiative?

� How prominent is the commitment to decentralization in relation to other majorreforms?

� Is decentralization required by constitutional reform, a new law, or simply policychange?

� Is there support or opposition from other constituencies, particularly within civilsociety for a decentralization effort?

� Is there widespread understanding of the political and socioeconomic implications ofdecentralization?

� What are past experiences with decentralization? Is current reform building on pastsuccess/failure or a new initiative?

� Is there an established subnational political environment that can have an impact onthe debate?

� Are there apparent political agendas that could undermine the decentralization effortand erode central confidence in the willingness to proceed?

� Could the effort become a lightning rod for political controversy, leading to diminishedsupport for decentralization?

� Is support for decentralization likely to continue if the power balance begins to shift?

� Is there policy alignment among central and local political leadership?� How well does civil society understand the implications of and support or oppose

decentralization?� What are regional and ethnic perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of

decentralization?

� Is the fiscal or macroeconomic context (balance of payments, debt, commodityprocess, etc.) stable?

� Does the planned decentralization initiative include the strengthening of localfinances?

� What are the perceived financial risks?

� Do central mechanisms prevent local elites from co-opting the resources that will betransferred to the local level?

� Are there powerful constituencies who will be adversely affected and will they acceptor attempt to neutralize the decentralization reform?

Political priority

Political conviction

Ancillary support

Degree ofunderstanding

Local politicalenvironment

Hidden politicalagendas

Politicalcontroversy

Alignment withregional and localopinion

Fiscal context

Danger of captureby local elites


Weak Political WillIF local elections have not been held and, despite

some assurances from the government, arenot scheduled or planned...

THEN political will is weak.

2. Assessing Local Governance Tradition

The second major factor to be considered inassessing a country environment fordecentralization and the development ofdemocratic local governance is its localgovernance tradition. The �local governancetradition� of a country refers to the degree ofdecentralization and the level of effectivenessand responsiveness of formal local governmentinstitutions to the community at-large. Theconcept of local governance traditionencompasses the full range of issues that caninvolve virtually any local system: capacity toperform; level of public participation in localaffairs; degree of local officials� accountabilityto the public; political, financial, andadministrative autonomy; etc.

A country�s local governance tradition reflectsthe nature of the local system�not only as itexists on the ground today, but also as it hasdeveloped over decades past. This concept callsfor a close reading of the country�s history oflocal governance. Traditions, moreover, tend tochange quite slowly. Unlike the rapid shifts thatcan occur with respect to political will, one isunlikely to see major new developments in thetradition of local governance for some time.

This concept must also include consideration ofethnic, indigenous, or other traditional forms ofgovernance that may, for good or ill, influenceor even substitute for the formal localgovernment structure.

Finally, like political will, local governancetradition can be viewed along a continuumranging from strong to moderate to weak.

Assessing a country�s local governance traditionrequires examining a wide variety of aspects ofthe local system. Table 2 provides a wide rangeof questions that bring out the key issues thatneed to be raised on an assessment of localgovernment tradition. As with political will,general assessment guidelines, based on USAIDexperience, can be developed. The followingguidelines are provided to assist DG officerswho must consider the local governancetradition of the country in which they work:

A strong local governance tradition is generallycharacterized by

� A long history of popularly elected localgovernments that effectively providebasic services, such as street repair orpark and cultural services, and evensome advanced functions, such as themanagement of utilities, education andhealth care. (See also Section II.)

� Local governments that are heldaccountable for their financialexpenditures by established practice, thepublic, and national governmentoversight

� A considerable degree of localgovernment autonomy

� A decentralized or decentralizingdemocratic system of nationalgovernment

� Political competition or a diversity ofpolitical parties at the local level

� A positive, if not institutionalized,relationship between traditional ethnicor indigenous forms of local decision-making and elected leaders of localgovernment


TABLE 2: Questions for Assessing Local Governance Tradition

Elections and choice of keyofficials

Ethnic or indigenousgovernance

Revenue-raising authority

Resource retention

Legislative authority

Resource allocation system

Decision-making structures

Juridical status

Civic and advocacyorganizations

Communication andaccountability

Citizen participation

Management authority

Expenditure controls

Self-evaluation

Capacity

Local governmentassociation(s)

Capture by bureaucracy

Civil service system

� Are free and fair local elections held regularly?� Are there other means by which local officials are held accountable to citizens?� Does the established system for selecting senior officials encourage accountability?

� Do ethnic or indigenous forms of local governance exist and, if so, how do these relate to the formal local-levelstate structures? Is this relationship stable/institutionalized or conflict-ridden?

� Does local government have adequate authority to raise revenue commensurate with increased responsibilitiesafter decentralization? Does it use that authority?

� Does local government have the authority to take effective collection actions against tax evasion?

� Do local governments retain resources that are raised locally?

� Do local governments have the autonomy to pass and enforce laws or ordinances necessary to carry out their newresponsibilities?

� Do local governments have third parties to whom they can turn who are likely to impartially adjudicate disputesbetween local and central governments and who can issue binding decisions?

� Is there a planning and budgeting system in place that allocates resources on the basis of program goals and abalanced mix of national and local policy priorities?

� Are resources that are due local governments from regional and national authorities (tax or revenue sharing, rents,fees) automatically and regularly transferred to local authorities?

� Are clear decision-making patterns consistent with decentralization delineated at the local level?

� Can local governments engage in contracts and bring suit in the judicial system?� To what degree are local government actions subject to review in the courts and by other levels of government?

� Do local officials actively participate in the work of professional organizations whose mission is to promote betterand more responsive local government?

� Do local governments demonstrate the ability to work with organizations in civil society?� Are officials trained and mechanisms in place to elicit citizen input into the formation of local policy priorities?

� Is useful information about the government made broadly available in regular and predictable ways, and docitizens follow and act on such information?

� Do citizens and the news media have free and unrestrained access to public records and meetings, and do theyuse this access?

� Do the news media operate freely and work effectively with elected officials and staff, and do the media shareaccurate, comprehensive local government information?

� Are there established, well-understood systems for ensuring informed, effective citizen input before decisions aremade? Do citizens participate in decision-making and, if so, how do they participate?

� Does the system provide for direct, face-to-face encounters between citizens and officials?

� Is the authority to hire and fire personnel clearly and completely vested in local government?� Do local governments have management autonomy in personnel decisions, organizational structure, and budget

procedures?

� Are there working systems in place in local governments to track expenditures?

� Do governments have use systems and structures to evaluate performance and share findings with public?

� Do local governments effectively assure basic public services required by the local population?� Are there national or regional institutions that have the human resource development capacity required for

decentralization?� Is funding for human resource development budgeted at the national and/or local levels?

� Is there an effective association of local governments in place to advocate for local autonomy and improverepresentation in national policy decisions? How strong is local government vis-à-vis the center?

� Is civil service bureaucracy such that it will not co-opt and capture the system?� Are the status differentiations among political leaders, bureaucrats, and civil servants, on the one hand, and typical

citizens, on other hand, such that the latter are intimidated by the former?

� Is the labor market such that professional personnel are likely (and able) to accept jobs with local governments? Isa local government civil service law in place and enforced?

� Do local governments recognize the value of training for newly elected local officials? Are public or private trainingresources available?


� Local government administrations thatare not highly politicized and thatdemonstrate a measure of staff careerstability, probably based on a local civilservice law

� Increasingly open and participatorylocal government with activecommunity involvement

A weak (or essentially nonexistent) localgovernance tradition is often characterized by

� Appointed local officials or officialswho have been recently elected for thefirst�or one of the few times�in thecountry�s history

� Local governments that provide few, ifany, services without the involvementand support of the central government(Local capacity is weak.)

� Nationally, a highly centralized systemin which authoritarian national leadersare popularly elected, yet remain set onmaintaining strong central control

� A few national, centralized, politicalparties that dominate politics at all levels(Local political diversity is weak.)

� Conflict between tradition or ethniclocal traditions and the administrationsof elected local leaders

� Local administrations that are managedlargely according to the interests of theparty in office as opposed to theinterests of the community as a whole

� Local staff whose careers are almostentirely determined by their politicalparty affiliation (i.e., when your party isin, you are in; when your party is out,you are out)

� Considerable waste, corruption, andweak oversight of local governmentexpenditures

� Little citizen involvement or interest inlocal public affairs

B. An Assessment Methodology

The next step is to develop a model thatpromotes a better understanding of how theconcepts of political will and local governancetradition provide insight into the prospects forprogramming in decentralization and democraticlocal governance. One can fairly claim thatevery country in the world lies somewhere alongthe continuum between the two extremes�strong and weak�of political will and localgovernance tradition. Considering the twofactors together, one can illustrate the realm ofpossibilities to describe any developingcountry�s combination of political will and localgovernance tradition.

Figure 2 is designed to help DG officersexamine the possible country combinations ofpolitical will and local governance tradition. Thelevel of political will is gauged on the (vertical)y-axis, increasing as one moves away from theorigin. The level of local governance tradition isgauged on the (horizontal) x-axis, alsoincreasing from weak to strong as one movesaway form the origin. Divided into fourquadrants, the graph allows generalcategorization of each country:

Quadrant A: Countries with strong political willand weak local governance tradition

Quadrant B: Countries with strong political willand strong local governance tradition

Quadrant C: Countries with weak political willand weak local governance tradition

Quadrant D: Countries with weak political willand strong local governance tradition


The state of any nation�s political will or localgovernance tradition can be tracked on thegraph. Again, a country may fall anywhere,reflecting the variety of mixes of political willand local governance tradition. For example,country �Z� exhibits a moderate level ofpolitical will and a moderate local governancetradition.

DG officers can identify where their respectivecountries fall on the graph by carefullyconsidering the factors discussed earlier in thissection and the issues raised by the questions inTables 1 and 2.

C. Programming Implications

We can now draw general conclusions, for thereasons provided below, about the programmingenvironment in each quadrant. Each quadrantreflects the results of the country assessment ofpolitical will and local governance tradition and,

consequently, has implications for programming.To give DG officers a better idea of theassessment methodology, a country examplefollows the description of the programmingimplications of each quadrant.

FIGURE 2: Assessing Political Will and Local Governance Tradition

Strong

PO

LIT

ICA

L W

ILL

Weak

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TRADITION

Wea

k

Stro

ng

y-axis

x-axis0

A

C

B

D

� z


Quadrant A: Strong Will, Weak Tradition. The environment for programming is likely to be excellent.Developing countries located in this quadrant demonstrate the desire to decentralize and strengthen localgovernance. Given the weak local governance tradition, the local system also has much to improve. Thereare likely to be many areas at all levels of government in which to work.

Bolivia, 1994-1995: A �Quadrant A� CaseStrong Political Will Coupled with a Weak Local Governance Tradition

In 1994, Bolivia�s determination, primarily atthe highest levels of government, to decentralizeand to reform its local governance system wasabundantly clear. By the end of 1995, Bolivianselected local officials nationwide, municipalfinancial resources were doubled, and localgovernments took on a variety of newresponsibilities. The landmark 1994 PopularParticipation Law (PPL), which establishedmunicipal governments across the nationalterritory and created a series of mechanisms tohelp ensure community participation in andoversight of local investment decisions, wasbeing instituted. The administrativedecentralization law, which deconcentrated aseries of key responsibilities to the ninedepartments in order to support the developmentof the new subnational system, would soon takeeffect.

Strong Political Will. In 1993, GonzaloSánchez de Lozada, Bolivia�s third presidentsince the return to democratically electedgovernment in 1985, won the presidency on thepromise of a more socially conscious stage ofeconomic development that accorded highpriority to decentralization and anti-corruption.The new president and his team repeatedlystated their commitment to decentralizing power,developed the PPL and other reforms, and thenbegan instituting them. As observers couldreadily see, the government�s motivations werestrong: to make the Bolivian state more efficientand equitable through decentralization; toimprove local government responsiveness andaccountability; to turn the local system into anengine of economic growth; and to incorporateall segments of society�especially women and

indigenous groups with their own modes of localgovernance�into the national life. He alsosought to counter the power ofregional elites, who for decades had beenpushing for their own, contrary solutions to theproblem of a weak state. Carrying a strongmandate for change, Sánchez de Lozada�sgovernment was intent, in many respects, ondeepening Bolivian democracy.

Weak Local Governance Tradition. UntilDecember 1995, Bolivia had never elected localgovernment officials across the national territory(from 1949 to 1987, when municipal councilswere abolished, no elections were held at all).Before 1995�when municipal governmentscould be found only in provincial anddepartmental capitals�most rural Bolivians hadno formal local representation; they had beenhistorically excluded from the nation-state.Municipal finances were extremely weak andrevenues were distributed to urban areas to thevirtual exclusion of outlying areas. The centralgovernment, moreover, had long ago absorbedmost municipal functions as it stronglycentralized power, especially after the 1952revolution. Given the local governments� longrecord of ineffectiveness, the general public hadno faith in them. Indigenous groups in long-ignored areas, however, developed deep-rootedforms of democratic organization and communaldecision-making that continue today. Theincorporation of these customs into the formalstructure of local government was a primeobjective of the PPL.

Source: Gary Bland, USAID�s Center forDemocracy and Governance


Quadrant B: Strong Will, Strong Tradition. The environment for programming is good, but USAID maynot want to get involved, as the needs may not be as good as in other areas. The country has the will tomove ahead with decentralization and the strengthening of local governance. Given the relative strengthof the local system, some sectors will probably have more assistance needs than others. These cases areunusual in the developing world and, as seen below, a country�s strong will/strong tradition character maybe limited in scope.

South Africa, 1994-2000 and Beyond: A Qualified �Quadrant B� CaseStrong Political Will Coupled with a Strong Local Governance Tradition

South Africa is one of the few developing countriesthat developed a strong local governance tradition.Yet that tradition applied only to the localgovernments controlled by and for the whiteminority. Under apartheid�s dual local governmentstructure, as whites prospered, the black populationwas denied local representation and access to publicservices. With apartheid�s demise, local governmentreform is seen as key to uniting the country.

Strong Political Will. Local government isundergoing a dramatic transformation in SouthAfrica, mirroring the tremendous change in societyfollowing the end of apartheid. Prior to the 1994elections, the ruling Nationalist Party and the AfricanNational Congress negotiated an end to theconflictive stalemate over the future of the blacktownships and minority dominated localgovernments. The result was the passage of interimlaws establishing the institutional frameworks�metropolitan, urban, and rural governments�for anew local system. These laws set in motion the three-phase transition to a new subnational system ofgovernment that continues today. They provide fornon-discriminatory participation in local politics;partially proportional representation in elections; andthe amalgamation of these formerly segregated localjurisdictions into institutions that placedadministrative responsibility on the formerly whiteexecutive and managerial structures�the strongestfinancially and institutionally. The 1996 constitutionessentially ratified these changes. It provides forcomprehensive decentralization, abolishes the formerracially divided jurisdictions, and subdivides thecountry into three democratically elected levels ofgovernment. A variety of new functions aredecentralized and local units have significanttaxation, borrowing, and revenue authority. Underthe transition, new laws are replacing the interimreforms. In 1997, the South African LocalGovernment Association (SALGA) was legallyestablished. A year later, the national government

released a white paper outlining the transformation ofthe local government system. In carrying out thatplan, the national government is redrawing theboundaries of municipal governments. The 1999Structures Act provides for the establishment ofdifferent types of municipalities, allocates of powersamong the types, and addresses issues for localelections. Additional legislation is underconsideration. The transition will formally becomplete with the fall 2000 elections.

Strong Local Governance Tradition. In white-dominated areas, apartheid fostered accountability,involvement of the community in political life, andeffective service delivery. White local councils wereelected from 1910 onward. Blacks, segregated into�homelands� and �townships� on the outskirts ofurban areas, were highly dependent on the centralgovernment and had limited access to public goodsand services. Black councils began only in 1982, andColoured and Indian communities did not have theirown administrations. Under apartheid, despitecentralization, many white local governmentsadministered well-structured governments withconsiderable authority and effectiveness. Theirfinancial standing and management was fairly strong.Strong tax bases (and inequitable water andelectricity sales to black townships) allowed thecreation of investment funds. A key to today�sreorganization of municipalities is to take advantageof institutional capacity developed in the past (whichgenerally did not emerge in small municipalities).Building democratic governance�citizen trust,ending the culture of non-payment, affirmativeaction, etc.�is a daunting prospect. Trainedpersonnel have left local governments andbureaucracies slowly respond to the new leadership.Yet, experienced administrators are able to serve asmentors for new staff.

Sources: Bird and Vaillancourt, 1998; Wunsch,1998; and World Bank, 2000.


Quadrant C: Weak Will, Weak Tradition. Although the environment for programming is poor, USAIDmay want to get involved. These developing countries lack the will to decentralize and elected localgovernments, if they exist, are so weak that they have little lobbying force at the national level. Countriesthat have weak local governance tradition, however, do offer a variety of opportunities for programming.Under some circumstances, USAID may want to work on a limited scale with the aim of buildingmomentum or pressure for change at the national level, especially if a change in political will isforeseeable or the prospects for local elections in the near future are good.

Ukraine, 1992-1999: A �Quadrant C� CaseWeak Political Will Coupled with a Weak Local Governance Tradition

Until recently, the legal basis for local governance inUkraine has been in flux. The former socialist countrylagged behind its counterparts at the national and locallevels. There was no constitutional basis for localgovernment as late as 1996. Although altered severaltimes, the old Soviet constitution and 1992 Law onLocal Rada of People�s Deputies and Local Self-Governance did include the relevant legal provisions.At the local level, only the former Polish and Austro-Hungarian cities had local governance traditions thatwere remnants from prior to the 1940s.

Weak Political Will. Unlike some CentralEuropean countries, Ukraine has not had politicalleadership with a strong mandate to either stay thecourse or significantly change the course. It is roughlydivided between a significantly socialist-leaningpopulation in the central and eastern part and a moremarket-oriented population in the west. About two-thirds of the population live in the eastern and centralparts. Any political leader in Ukraine must take thisdemographic/political situation into considerationwhen running for office. This has led to politicalleadership and representation in the nationalparliament, which can be characterized asdirectionless. The absence of a strong mandate forchange has led to political constructs that passresponsibility from one governing entity to another.The parliament blames the president, and the presidentpasses blame to the prime minister, who responds thatthe parliament is not passing the needed laws. WhenUkraine voted for a new constitution in 1996, itbecame clear that some 50 laws would have to beamended or new ones written in order for theconstitution to become a useful document. Of theselaws, three have yet to be completed and implemented,and they linger in committees. They are the Law on thePresident�s Administration, the Law on the Cabinet ofMinisters, and the Law on the State Administration.They reflect the ongoing battle between the presidentand the parliament, and between regional (oblast)

administrations and cabinet ministers over the newauthority relations that these laws eventually willestablish. The process of decentralization ofadministrative responsibility and authority is closelylinked to the outcome of political battles andcompromises connected to these three laws.

Weak Local Governance Tradition. AlthoughUkraine had local administrations and councils duringthe Soviet period, their leadership�as well as that ofadministrative bodies during the Russian Imperialperiod prior to 1918�represented the centralgovernment located in Moscow. It is important to notethe difference between the popular perception of acentral government located in the geographical capitalversus a central government located in anothercountry. During the Soviet period, Kiev�s function wasperceived as regional, and not national, both by centralgovernment in Moscow and by local administrators.Ukrainian oblast and municipal officials� function wasto execute decisions that were primarily outlined inMoscow. This tradition continues today at the oblastlevel; only the source of central authority has changed.On the municipal level there has been a significantchange since independence, as mayors and localcouncil members are directly elected locally. Oblastadministrators continue to be appointed by thepresident. In addition, the budget crisis has pushedlocal governments to recognize that more localauthority is needed to address pressing problems onthe local level. The lack of past traditions other than inwestern Ukraine hinders the acceleration of thisprocess. It is important that most officials in the centralgovernment come from areas of Ukraine with fewlocal self-government traditions; few people in centralgovernment have practical experience with municipalgovernment other than as an implementing organ for acentral government.

Source: Bohdan Radejko, Research Triangle Institute


Quadrant D: Weak Will, Strong Tradition. The environment for programming is likely to be poor. Thenational government shows little or no desire to decentralize and strengthen local autonomy and thecountry already has a relatively strong local government system. Relative to other areas of support, thiscountry probably does not need substantial decentralization and democratic local governance assistance.There may be, nonetheless, some targets of opportunity that can benefit the local system.

Tunisia, 1993-1996: A �Quadrant D� CaseWeak Political Will Coupled with a Strong Local Governance Tradition

Local governments have existed in Tunisia sincethe late 1800s. Indeed, in the period leading upto independence in 1956, local governmentswith elected councils had significantresponsibilities for a variety of local services.While some of this responsibility waned, localgovernment remained a significant feature of thepublic sector, with the number of localgovernments increasing by the late 1980s. Inaddition, in conjunction with economicliberalization reforms in the early 1990s, furtherlocal government reforms were enacted,particularly to develop improved localinfrastructure financing. However, these reformswere not accompanied by a parallel effort tostrengthen democratic local governance. Localelections remained dominated by the ruling partyand relations with civil society were largelychanneled through appointed neighborhoodcommittees.

Weak Political Will. The government wasengaged in meaningful reform to increase theresource base of local governments andstrengthen the capacity of local governmentmanagers. But reform was not accompanied byparallel efforts either to reassert the role of localgovernment in services or to expand thedemocratic nature of local governance. Thethreat of Muslim fundamentalist movements wasthe primary justification for maintaining controland not permitting more dynamic relationshipsbetween local government and civil society. Theruling political party continued its strongdominance of local elected bodies: Therelatively small number of opposition-electedlocal officials declined from the elections in

1990 to those of 1995. Further, the relationshipsbetween local governments and citizens groupswere largely channeled through comités dequartier�neighborhood committees�whichwere under the control of the Ministry ofInterior.

Strong Local Governance Tradition. By1885, most major cities in Tunisia weregoverned by a local government structureincluding an elected board and a strong mayor.These structures have been maintained to thepresent, within an evolving legal and institutionalframework. After independence in 1956,municipal service responsibilities were reducedin favor of national parastatal service agenciesfor water, wastewater, and housing, for example.These arrangements were thought to be moreefficient. At the same time, municipalgovernments retained vital services such aseconomic infrastructure, solid wastemanagement, and transport. City hall remainedthe focus of attention on the local landscape. Thegovernment of Tunisia continued to expand thenumber of municipalities, from 175 in 1975 to246 in 1989, and also expanded their role ineconomic and social development planning.Further, in the 1990s the governmentsignificantly expanded the financing available tolocal governments for infrastructure investmentsby capitalizing a municipal development bank.The rapid increase in the demand for funds fromthe bank attested to the local governments�desire to be active leaders in local development.

Source: Henry P. Minis, Research TriangleInstitute


Since much of the developing world ischaracterized by highly centralized systems,most of the countries in which USAID worksfall into quadrants A and C. That is, in the largemajority of USAID-presence countries, localgovernance is weak. The programmingenvironment, therefore, is largely predicated onthe country�s level of political will for reform.

D. Other Considerations

A number of other issues bear consideration indeciding whether or not to program in the areaof decentralization and democratic localgovernance.

This handbook recognizes that a country�s levelof political will can shift dramatically in shortorder. Assessments should be revisited regularlyand when new activities or program shifts areunder consideration.

The handbook also recognizes that, in practice,political will and local governance tradition canhave little or nothing to do with the decision toinitiate programming activities in a country. Avariety of other factors come into play. Thedecision to program or not to program is oftenpre-determined in response to host-countryevents, U.S. policy objectives, programmandates, available resources, activities of otherdonors, and other considerations outside amission�s and a assessment team�s scope ofauthority.

Research conducted in the preparation of thishandbook revealed multiple trigger points andmotivations for the initiation of decentralizationand local governance programming. Examplesinclude the following:

� Political change or natural disasters thatincreases host-country demand andspurs U.S. policy direction for rapidimplementation of basic services inspecific regions or neighborhoods

� The requirements of U.S. legislation,perhaps a law that requires developmentof a U.S./host-country foundationcommitted to democratic reform

� Direction from another U.S. governmentagency to initiate or enhancedecentralization or democratic localgovernance programming

In such cases, an assessment of political will andlocal governance tradition provides insight thatcan be applied in program strategy and tacticaldesign. As in all phases of program planning andexecution, participation of host-country partnersand stakeholders in the assessment will enhanceresults while simultaneously buildingrelationships and commitment to programimplementation.


IV. DEFININGPROGRAMMINGSTRATEGY

The next programming step is to develop astrategy�to examine the country context,various stakeholders and their interests, and,among other factors, the nature of potentialinterventions�to help ensure that resourcesdedicated to the program achieve the mission�sstated objectives. Defining a strategy involvesdeveloping an approach that can maximizeimpact on democratic development.

In this section, we assume the USAID Missionhas assessed the environment and other relevantfactors and decided to proceed with a DGprogram in decentralization and/or democraticlocal governance.

A. Options for Strategic Focus

Following the organizational frameworkmentioned above and reflecting the nature ofexisting USAID programming, strategy optionscan be grouped into three areas of focus:

Creating a favorable enabling environment:Activities focused primarily at the national level,although they may include working with local-level interests to influence the center. Theobjective is to encourage the nationalgovernment to enact and/or institute, assumingthe circumstances are right, an effectivedecentralization program, including free and fairlocal elections.

Developing democratic local governance:Activities focused primarily at the local level.The objective is to assist local government andcommunity efforts to create local governmentthat operates in a more responsive, participatory,accountable, and increasingly effective�ormore democratic�fashion.

Building local government capacity:Activities focused primarily at the local level.The objective is to improve local governmentperformance as measured through, primarily, astronger financial position and increasinglyeffective public service delivery. Financial,administrative, and managerial capacity are allincluded in this area of programming. For moredetail, see the publications of USAID�s Office ofEnvironment and Urban Programs in the list ofreferences and web sites at the end of thishandbook.

A choice on strategy may involve one, two, orall three of these areas. Since national-levelactivities affect those at the local level and viceversa, the objective in this phase ofprogramming is to determine where the strategicemphasis is best placed. The completedassessment, as outlined in the preceding section,should produce a wealth of information and datahelpful in determining the strategic focus area.Some examples of the questions the DG officerwould consider, based on the findings of theassessment, include the following:

� Did the assessment of political will atthe national level reveal an opportunity,barrier, or driving force that indicates aneed to focus on creating an enablingenvironment that favors greater localautonomy? To exercise more controlover raising and applying local revenue?To work more effectively with NGOsand private business on privatization ofand contracting for local services?

� Did the assessment reveal a strongwillingness, but little experience, amonglocal government officials and civilsociety organizations to collaborate oncommunity development, social servicesdelivery, or other areas of importance tothe mission? Did the examination oflocal governance tradition indicate thatfiscal accountability systems, including


communication with citizens and thenews media, are weak, are contributingto mistrust, or are hindering meaningfulinvolvement of citizens in critical localdecisions?

� Did the assessment reveal that localgovernments have minimal or noexperience in critical service delivery,finance, and management systems? Isthis limitation critical to fulfillment ofresponsibilities that already have beentransferred to the local level?

� Did the assessment uncover a stronglocal-level demand and opportunity forvisible results in an identified area�such as health care, public participation,or public utility management�ofstrategic concern to the mission?

Additional questions to stimulate discussionsabout strategy options and potential openings inthe national enabling environment, democraticlocal governance, and local government capacitybuilding follow in the boxes.

Creating a favorable enabling environment.Or encouraging the national government to enact and implement an effective decentralization program.

***QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE STRATEGY DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON NATIONAL ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

� Is decentralization a clear and publicly stated objective of the national government or of key politicalgroups? Have key elected or administrative officials expressed a desire for USAID assistance withdecentralization?

� Have local government officials expressed the need for reforms that allow them to raise and manage own-source revenue? Have national government officials expressed or demonstrated a desire to accord localgovernment such authority?

� Has a recent election shifted political priorities toward centralization or decentralization? Has a recentelection put decentralization proponents in positions that would allow them to develop and promote astrategic legislative agenda?

� Have local governments formed (or are they forming) a broad-based national municipal association thatcould serve as the voice of local government in development and implementation of a decentralizationlegislative agenda, laws, and regulations? Is the association influential with key elected and administrativeofficials at the national level? Are those key officials favorable or hostile to decentralization?

� Does national reform in economic, social, or other areas allow opportunities for the decentralization anddemocratic local governance activities? How does existing mission programming benefit from programinitiatives in this area?

� Do national laws governing CSOs, access to information, open meetings, freedom of the press, ethicalstandards, or civil service exist or, in their current form, inhibit local government accountability andresponsiveness?

� What is the nature of activities in this area of other bilateral and multilateral donors? What is the level oftheir interest in decentralization?


Developing democratic local governance.Or aiding local government efforts to operate in a more democratic fashion.

***QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE STRATEGY DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON DEVELOPING DEMOCRATIC LOCAL GOVERNANCE

� Have local officials initiated some programs to improve accountability and responsiveness of senior andfront-line municipal officials and requested additional assistance in this area?

� Have legal reforms established processes for increasing citizen involvement in local decision-making, suchas participatory budgeting, mandatory public meetings, referenda on key local issues, recall, etc.? Are thesebeing used?

� Are NGOs and private businesses actively developing the skills necessary to partner or contract with localgovernment to deliver services or promote community initiatives, but stymied by lack of opportunities towork with local governments? Or are local governments stymied in efforts to engage NGOs and businessesin effective partnerships?

� Are news media reports on local government accurate and comprehensive? Are reporters covering localgovernment affairs and citizen input in a responsible manner? Have local government officials developedprograms for working effectively with the news media to deliver accurate, timely information to citizens?Or are government-media relationships strained?

� Are local government budgets available to the community and media? Do local governments informcitizens of budget issues and provide opportunities for citizens to become involved in budget decisions?

� What is the level of citizen oversight of local operations and are citizens making use of legal access topublic documents?

Building local government capacity.Or helping local governments enhance performance, primarily through better service delivery and improvedfinancial standing.

***QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE STRATEGY DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY

� Do local governments have planning and budgeting systems that allocate resources on the basis of pre-established priorities and goals? Have recent local government budget problems called attention to the needfor improved fiscal planning, revenue forecasting, budgeting, expenditure control, and accounting? Doessuch inexperience undermine decentralization?

� Can local governments engage in contracts, and do they use this authority? Does lack of experience incontracting and procurement contribute to perceived corruption, inhibit economic development, or limitinfrastructure and service improvements? Has local government inability to act on contractingopportunities undermined the transfer of additional responsibilities?

� How do local governments ensure that their personnel is well-trained and performs well? Can they hire andfire staff in all sectors?

� Is the inadequate performance of local governments as result of insufficient autonomy or inability to takeadvantage of the authority they currently hold?

� What are the primary public services local governments provide and why are these not optimally provided?Is public dissatisfaction with service provision a major issue of the local system?

� Have local officials asked for help in developing their management capacity?


governance, and local government capacity.Cross-cutting sectoral issues, such asenvironment and education, can provide focusedopportunities for multi-level programming. Ofcourse, resource constraints and relativelylimited prospects for achieving stated objectivesmay preclude this option.

2. Programming at Just the Local Level

If decentralizing legal reforms have been or arebeing instituted or if national reform is unlikely,then local government should be the focus ofattention. The bottom-up reform approach canproduce results, including building awareness ofand trust in local governments� ability toperform. For example, support for innovativeand effective service improvements in trafficcontrol, neighborhood issues, and other high-profile areas can garner citizen, media, and,ultimately, central government attention.

3. Programming at Just the NationalLevel

Focused intervention at only the national level�providing support for development of reformlegislation, for example�can be effective inimproving the enabling environment, as was thecase in the Philippines. This can includeactivities to strengthen local governments�national lobbying and communication capacities,

B. Programming Considerations

DG officers should consider various factorswhen determining whether to work in just one ofthe three areas, in two or more areas, orsimultaneously in all three.

Again, the level of the government�s politicalwill to reform is a primary issue in determiningwhether programming at the national level is awise investment of resources. Completion of theenvironmental assessment outlined in Section IIIwill help DG officers decide if any national-level activity is warranted, if certain centralgovernment ministries or legislative body shouldreceive particular attention, or if a local-levelfocus holds the most promise.

The following general strategy options holds themost potential to support advancement ofdemocratic local governance:

1. Programming at All Levels ofGovernment

A multi-pronged approach is the ideal,particularly in an environment in which actionby the central government is necessary and areal possibility. In these cases, national-levelprogram activities should reinforce localactivities and vice versa. Programming targetsthe enabling environment, democratic local

USAID/Uganda�s Local StrategyBeginning in the second half of the 1990s, the dramatic transition to democracy in Uganda encouraged the USAID Mission to moveforward with DG programming. Far-reaching decentralization began with the Local Governments Acts of 1997 and local electionsthe following year. The reforms included establishing multiple levels of local government with thousands of council posts to be filled,requiring that 33 percent of elected officials be women, and transferring to the local level a wide-ranging array of functions. USAID/Uganda�s decentralization and democratic local governance strategy began with recognizing a rare opportunity to take advantage ofthe mandate to include women in local government. Civil society overall had experienced tremendous growth recently. Missionofficers saw that newly elected, ill-prepared local officials were now faced with taking on huge responsibilities for community affairs.The success of decentralization would depend on the ability of local officials to meet local needs. Mission staff also well understoodthe need, given time and resource constraints, to work in a limited number of subnational districts (ultimately in 8 of 45). Themission focuses on building local government capacity and strengthening democratic local governance. The strategy is to fosterdemocratic principles through a productive partnership between local government and civil society. Capacity-building is aimed atimproving task completion and increasing local governments� ability to provide services such as school provision and roadmaintenance, while work with CSOs would simultaneously allow local entities to advocate on behalf of local interests and monitordecision-making. Female officials are a particular target of capacity-building effort. To help ensure further support for localgovernment, limited capacity-building assistance is to be provided to Uganda�s Ministry of Local Government.


usually through local government associations.Sustainable reform efforts, however, call forsubsequent, well-timed local program activitiesdesigned to enhance the local system�s ability totake on new responsibilities.

4. Programming with a Local Emphasis,Capitalizing on National Openings

Programming may be characterized by a varietyof local governance activities or possibilities,with few prospects at the national level, perhapsbecause the will to reform is limited. Yet DGofficers should be ready to take advantage ofnational-level targets of opportunity that canemerge. For example, possibilities can be foundwithin the national administration, such as aparticularly sympathetic minister, or within thenational legislature, such as the president of akey parliamentary commission. Identifying andtaking advantage of these opportunities can leadto key results and serve as platforms upon whichto develop further activities.

5. Programming Activities with an Inter-governmental Impact

Support for the development of associations ofelected officials and local governmentprofessionals is a prime example. Indeed,

USAID support for boundary-crossing groups,such as associations, and processes, such asinter-governmental transfer systems, has proveneffective in multiple countries, such asHonduras. Technical and financial support forthe design and operation of common print andcomputer systems for sharing of governmentinformation, innovations, and lessons learnedhas improved inter-governmental understandingwhile also supporting transparency objectivesaimed at other sectors.

6. Programming with an Eye TowardDemocratic Local Governance

Local government activities should aim as muchas possible toward enhancing democratic localgovernance. The most effective USAID localprograms target opportunities to improve localadministrative and service delivery capacitywhile simultaneously working with civil societyor otherwise supporting development ofresponsive and participatory governance.Participatory planning and budgeting as well astransparent rate-setting procurement areimportant examples. Public-private partnershipscan help improve effectiveness and theaccountability of local government.

USAID/Bangladesh�s Supply/Demand StrategyBangladesh has been engaged in a transition to democracy since holding national elections in 1991. Elected local governments,known as union parishads, have been in place for 25 years, although their significance has varied with the degree of nationaldemocracy. USAID staff understood that decentralization has long been on the policy agenda in the country and that, historically,local administrations have functioned less as mechanisms for community decision-making than as vehicles through which the rulingparty distributes resources and patronage. A tradition of informal decision-making by the union council chairperson had created astrong sense of injustice among the have-nots. Elected union officials are, nonetheless, responsible for important communityconcerns, including law and order, infrastructure, and birth and death registers. Their performance is constrained by limited financialresources, traditional social attitudes, restricted access to information, and other difficulties. Recognizing that the nationalgovernment provides sufficient local autonomy, USAID/Bangladesh developed a program focused primarily on building democraticlocal governance. The strategy is to improve the responsiveness of local elected bodies and government institutions. A supply/demand model, based on initial survey of citizen needs and annual follow-up appraisals, is used to develop and refine programactivities. The disadvantaged, especially women, are targeted, and NGOs, which have become quite active in the country, are themain vehicle for providing assistance. The plan is broad-based, at various times reaching 30 percent of the country�s unions.Supply- and demand-based activities are complementary and meant to bring elected officials and their constituents together. Onthe supply side, activities focus on helping local elected bodies become more informed about their roles and more responsivethrough, for example, leadership training and promoting access NGO development expertise. On the demand side, activities areaimed at establishing mechanisms for direct citizen access to local government officials and promoting issue-specific communityawareness and social mobilization.


The case studies found in this section provideexamples of the strategies used by four USAIDMissions for their decentralization anddemocratic local governance programming. Theexperiences of these countries�Bangladesh,Bolivia, Uganda, and Ukraine�may proveuseful to DG officers as they consider their ownapproaches.

5. Programming with an Eye towardPromoting National Democracy

Strategy should consider the potential impact oflocal government activities on democracy at thenational level. Because resources are limited,USAID strategies often involve working with aselect group of pilot localities under theassumption that this will produce demonstrationeffects or replication in local governments thathave not received support. When applicable, DGofficers should assess early on the prospects forsuch �scaling-up.� Will demonstrated progress

USAID/Ukraine and Municipal StrengtheningEmerging from Soviet domination, Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991. The legacy of central state dominance, adysfunctional national bureaucracy that did not serve the public, and a shrinking resource base called for deep-seated reform. Localgovernment, in particular, emerged as an opportunity to demonstrate that the public sector could perform effectively. Working in aforeign-policy-priority country, USAID/Ukraine believed local assistance to be crucial because it has a more direct, positive impacton people�s lives, and therefore improves public perception of economic reform and democracy. As local officials came underpressure to produce, however, they faced increasingly severe resource limitations, unfunded mandates to provide new services,and weak administrative capacity. By 1994, the mission launched a pilot municipal finance and management project to support thedevelopment of local government in three cities. Activities sought to improve management, planning, service delivery, andinformation systems. The program supported the rise of the Association Ukrainian Cities (AUC), which lobbies for local governmentreform (the self-government provisions in the 1996 constitution and the 1997 Law on Local Powers) and supports dissemination ofsuccessful practices. Although local autonomy remains weak, as municipal progress has become increasingly important to theoverall reform effort, follow-on projects have built on previous work: providing technical assistance to improve trolley bus operationin 12 cities, involving citizens in priority-setting, and institutionalizing the AUC.

USAID/Bolivia�s Support for Popular ParticipationIn 1994, as part of a continuing transition to a stable, modern democratic system, Bolivia took a dramatic step toward thedevelopment of representative municipal government. With the passage of the Popular Participation Law (PPL), Bolivia establishedregularly elected local governments across the national territory for the first time in its history, created a series of mechanisms tohelp ensure community participation in and oversight of municipal investment decisions, and required local participatory planning.USAID/Bolivia quickly embarked on a multi-pronged strategy, including national-level work and local governance and capacity-building activities, to help implement and institutionalize an effective and responsive local government system. The program beganwith support for the first nationwide municipal elections in 1995. The focus then became the provision of training and technicalassistance to elected authorities, including intensive �teaching� of staff, councilors, new community oversight committees, andCSOs, in some 20 municipalities. To further broaden the base for democracy and governance, an NGO grant fund was developedto allow expansion of training to localities with which USAID was not directly involved (up to 150 more). At the national level,USAID/Bolivia has lobbied in support of the PPL. The program also has supported policy development, congress�s ability torespond to new municipal and citizen demands, and the building of links between district-based members of congress and theirconstituents in targeted municipalities.

in the pilots be sufficient to provoke other localgovernments to adopt these new approacheswithout external support? If so, can this benefitthe host country�s national democracy? Officersmight consider working with other donors, civilsociety organizations, and local governmentassociations that are interested in promotingsuccessful pilot activities. The process ofchoosing local governments should be done toavoid a biased sample of the local reality (e.g.,choosing only local governments with obviousadvantages).


V. SELECTING ENTRYPOINTS AND TACTICS

After the assessment is complete and strategieshave been identified, the third task is to identifyand select tactics, or tools, that will supportresults and sustainable impact. The initial stepsin this tactical phase include

� Identifying program entry point(s)

� Choosing appropriate program tools

A. Identifying the Entry Point

An entry point is the initial programmingopportunity�the strategic doorway or point ofentry�that will allow USAID to anchor itsprogram and optimize overall impact. Ideally,the programming entry point(s) offers a tangiblefocus for both local attention and donorassistance. An entry point may offer �what to dofirst� and provide an opportunity initially to fillan important gap in the array of needs. Often,the entry point will lead to a broader spectrumof activities.

The entry point depends highly on availableprogramming resources and the opportunities orconstraints present in the country. There is noparticular limit on the number of entry pointsinvolved. Two or more entry points may emergeat the national and/or local levels. As the DGofficer weighs programming options in thestrategic focus area(s) against availableresources, the entry point(s) that promises tohave the greatest impact should emerge.

If work with a group of pilot local governmentsis anticipated, developing a plan for replicationof successful experience in non-USAIDsupported localities�or scaling-up�will be anessential consideration for long-term impact.Working with other donors and local

government associations may prove helpful inthis respect.

Involving mission and host-country stakeholdersbrings local knowledge and experience to theidentification process. Broad participation helpsbuild consensus and commitment toimplementation and experience that supportsinstitutionalization.

The following is a list of potential entry pointsand some discussion of the strategy that mightbe involved in using each one. The discussion isorganized according to the three strategic areasdescribed in Section II: creating a favorablenational enabling environment; developingdemocratic local governance; and building localgovernment capacity. A fourth, critical categoryhas been added: sectoral entry points, whichallow consideration of potential programopenings in key sectors, such as health care andeducation.

1. National Enabling Environment

The following entry points are common inprogramming focused on producing effectivedecentralization:

a. Implementation of constitutional reformsrecognizing local autonomy

Amending the national constitution can establishdecentralization and democratic localgovernance as fundamental guiding principles.Support for constitutional amendment can be akey entry point because, without fundamentalreform, the impetus for decentralization may betightly restricted. In post-conflict situations,especially in countries characterized by strongregional diversity, constitutional reform and theestablishment of a federal system may be at thecenter of the national debate.


An amendment-based approach may

� Be essential, if the role of the centralgovernment is already defined

� Provide a valuable opportunity toarticulate underlying values andprinciples

� Establish maximum political visibilityand generate broad public discussionand debate that can, ultimately, combatopposition and spur action

� Outline a general distribution ofresponsibilities for central and localgovernments, although detail is limitedat the constitutional level

b. Implementation of decentralizing, enablinglegislation

Legislation can establish fundamental principlesand revise the relationships between andfunctions of the central and local government.Bills can be crafted to address changes in therange of relationships between various lineministries and their local counterparts.Legislation can be prepared in tandem with aconstitutional amendment or separately if theexisting constitution is compatible with thedecentralization effort.

For decentralization, a key legislative concern isthe establishment of a local electoral system andthe convening of free and fair elections based onthat system. Local elections can serve as anexcellent entry point for programming. Forinformation on election-related programming,see the Center�s technical publication, ManagingAssistance in Support of Political and ElectoralProcesses. (See ordering information on theinside back cover.)

Legislation is particularly important in definingthe location of revenue-raising authority and the

flow of funds to and from the center. Issues thatcan be addressed in enabling legislation include

� The responsibility of the centralgovernment to provide continuedfinancial support to local government�or granting new and equivalent localauthority to raise revenue�to supportfulfillment of new responsibilities

� The authority of local governments todesign and deploy alternative revenue-raising techniques

� The authority of local governments toretain funds they raise

� The authority of local governments tomake contracts and release fundsindependent of national ministry control

New legislation also can modify other pertinentlaws, such as civil service statutes, that mayconstrain decentralization.

c. Implementation of administrative laws,regulations, and policies

In most instances, decentralization requiressubstantial revision of regulations andprocedures. The issuance of conforming andcomplying regulations, therefore, can become animportant adjunct to decentralization throughconstitutional amendment or passage oflegislation. New regulations can bringsubstantial change even in the absence of otherlegal reforms.

The following should be kept in mind whenregulations are considered to be a potential entrypoint:

� Regulations can be issued or revised in amuch more flexible and adaptablefashion than can constitutionalamendments or new legislation.


� The issuance of new and revisedregulations will likely be essential forsorting through the tangle of roles andresponsibilities in certain areas (e.g.,oversight of public utilities).

� Issuance of regulations is particularlyuseful for defining procedures forplanning and budgeting and forpreventing recentralization.

� Civil service regulations can helpsupport development of a professionalcadre of local civil servants.

� Administrative law systems tend topredate a new decentralization initiativeand are most often used to ensure closecentral control rather than to encouragelocal initiative.

It is important to note that regulations also canbe crafted to modify, and sometimes thwart, theenacted legislation supporting decentralizationand democratic local governance. An openregulatory process that includes opportunities forpublic review and input is the best safeguard.

d. Establishment of a legal basis for thecreation of a local government association

A decision to create and develop a nationalassociation with legal standing for advocacy andrepresentation of local government perspectivesmay entail national enabling legislation.

The creation and development of localassociations is an effective way to support localgovernment development because an associationcan serve as an efficient legislative research arm,a potential source of technical assistance, and alobby for legislative reform. Associations can

� Advocate decentralization and hold avested interest in improved governmentperformance

� Serve as a vehicle for distribution ofinnovative experiences in USAID pilotlocal governments, as part of a scaling-up strategy

� Serve as the voice of local governmentin decentralization and democratic localgovernance initiatives

� Serve as a source of technical adviceand assistance on issues of concern tolocal elected officials

� Help establish professional standards ofconduct and improve the public statureof local elected officials and civilservants

� Prepare and advocate for passage of alocal government legislative agenda

2. Democratic Local Governance EntryPoints

The following entry points are common inprogramming focused on strengthening localgovernment responsiveness, accountability, andeffectiveness.

a. Creation of opportunities for citizens toexpress views on and priorities for localservices

Service is at the heart of local governmentperformance and, if it meets the expectations ofcitizens, builds a sense of ownership thatunderlies democratic governance. Establishingopen processes for gathering citizen input onservice priorities, standards, fees, andsatisfaction gives citizens the opportunity tovoice their views and take responsibility asactive participants in the progress of theircommunity. In addition, it provides the localgovernment with data�from those who financeand rely on the services�for informed decision-making.


b. Creation of means for citizens and the mediato gain access to public meetings, records,and information

Information dissemination is the currency oflocal government-community relations. Localpolicies, laws, and traditions that govern publicrecords, meetings, and citizens� access rights canbe reformed without enabling nationallegislation. Local officials can take the lead inthis area by setting standards, institutingpolicies, training staff to implement them, andinforming the public of their new rights and howto exercise them. Many local governments indeveloping democracies have demonstrated theircapacity to develop standing informationmechanisms�city hall press centers, citizeninformation and service centers, annual budgetsummary publications, and, increasingly, website applications�with USAID technicalassistance and minimal donor capital investment.

Strengthening communication and informationmechanisms at the local level can be lessonerous than tackling access issues throughnational-level legislation. Local practicesdeveloped in targeted jurisdictions can be scaledup and widely disseminated through localgovernment or professional associations, civilsociety organizations, and news media unions.Widespread local adoption of these practicesmay reinforce or catalyze national-level efforts.

c. Support for participatory proceduresallowing citizen input on decisionsregarding resource allocation and planning

The development and use of procedures forcitizen input on major local governmentdecisions�the annual budget, land use, andconstruction�build trust between local officialsand citizens. This also helps improve decision-making, reduce opportunities for corruption, andbuild consensus on critical community issues.

The budget process, for example, is a practicalentry point that provides an opportunity to

� Introduce or reinforce existingparticipation mechanisms, such asneighborhood meetings, focus groups,and public hearings

� Partner with NGOs and the news mediato inform citizens on budget issues andopportunities to get involved

� Demonstrate to local governmentofficials how participation can elicituseful information that helps them maketough budget decisions

Approaching participation at the local level isless cumbersome and likely to be more effectivethan at the national level. People are more likelyto participate if the issues involved, as is usuallythe case locally, affect their daily lives.Participatory processes as well can be tested in alimited number of target jurisdictions andencouraged to spread to a larger area.

d. Strengthening local government capacity towork effectively with the news media

The news media can serve as both a governmentwatchdog and a partner in sharing clear,accurate, useful, and timely information aboutgovernment services, issues, decisions, andopportunities for citizens to participate indecision-making. The media and localgovernment in new and emerging democracieshave a strong basis for partnership:

� They are simultaneously developing theskills they need to function effectively intheir new environment.

� The government has information themedia want and need.


� The media have direct conduits tocitizens.

� Where a free press exists, the media willcover local government issues with orwithout the government�s cooperation.

� The government wants coverage toinclude accurate information and itspoint of view.

A positive relationship between local officialsand the news media can shift government from atraditionally defensive or critical approach tomedia to a more productive, partnership-basedstyle. By working openly and professionallywith the media, government can engender mediarespect and gain accurate coverage of keydecentralization-related issues and services.

By initially working to strengthen the workingrelationship between local government and themedia, citizen awareness of community issues,local government services, and publicopportunities to participate in decision-makingcan improve. Media coverage of localgovernment activities and perspectives,moreover, is likely to reach central governmentaudiences.

The Center�s publication, The Role of Media inDemocracy: A Strategic Approach, providesinformation that can be useful in assessing thepotential of this entry point. (See orderinginformation on the inside back cover.)

e. Working to encourage non-traditionalgroups�women, ethnic groups, and otherminorities�to participate in localgovernment

Decentralization may open opportunities forthese groups and their leaders to participate inlocal affairs for the first time. Training and otherassistance can help bring them into public life,

and can be an important first step to a largerprogramming effort.

f. Promoting partnerships among localgovernments, civil society organizations, theprivate sector, and other groups

Effort to improve public services often providesunique opportunities to bring together groupsfrom many sectors�neighborhood committees,business, academia, etc.�to resolve commonconcerns. These concerns can be as narrow aslandscaping a local park or as broad as regionaleconomic development. The potential forquick�and self-reinforcing�visible results,especially early on, is best when the focus isclear and narrow.

Partnerships give government an opportunity tomove from service provider to facilitative leader,a role in which it convenes, guides, andleverages community resources, includingcitizen knowledge and skills. In the barn-raisingmodel used in the United States and other partsof the world, local government and citizenssuspend their traditional roles as serviceprovider and passive consumers to becomepartners who can contribute whatever they canto take advantage of opportunities and solvecommunity problems.2

Partnerships are particularly effective ineconomic development, where a variety of localinterests come together to forge a commonvision of what the community can be and toleverage resources from a variety ofgovernmental and non-governmental sources.

2 For more information about this model, see theNational League of Cities� publication, ConnectingCitizens and Their Government: Civility, Responsibility,and Local Democracy (NLC, 1996).


3. Local Government Capacity

Enhancing human capacity is a basic buildingblock for development. Enhancing localgovernment capacity to act involves not onlyresources, but also the skills and competenciesrequired to manage them.

The following potential entry points fordecentralization and democratic localgovernance programming focus on thedevelopment of local government capacity. Formore detail on municipal finance, see thepublications of USAID�s Office of Environmentand Urban Programs in the list of references atthe end of this handbook.

a. Strengthening the local government�s role inpolicymaking

Strengthening local government capacity todevelop policy can include technical assistanceand training linked to standard processes:

� Financial policies associated with thelocal government budget

� Procurement policy associated withcontracting for and purchasing of goodsand supplies

� Policies governing access to local publicrecords

� Open meetings and open recordspolicies

� Public notification policies, particularlythose related to land use and communityplanning

� Personnel policies associated withprofessional development of localgovernment employees

Independent organizations of local-electedofficials and professional staff can serve as idealpartners in policy-related capacity building.Through research, workshops, and otheractivities, they can help develop standardpolicies, promote information sharing amongmembers, serve as a resource center for policymodels, and encourage widespread adoption ofeffective practice.

b. Expansion of local revenue-generatingauthority

Resource mobilization entry points include thefollowing:

� Revenue authority: Access to resourcesfor investment is lacking or insufficientbecause of inadequately developedcapital markets, poor debt-carryingcapacity (whether real or perceived),and inexperience with debt as a sourceof funds for investment.

� Revenue structure: The revenuestructure should provide a degree ofstability and predictability and allowlocal government to access tax and feeresources. Available resources shouldrepresent the locality�s range ofeconomic activities, be buoyant (i.e.,grow with economic activity/inflation),allow the local government to recovercosts from users of services that are�private� (divisible) in nature.

� Size of the local revenue base: The sizeof the local revenue base is oftendescribed as a percentage of grossdomestic product and/or total publicexpenditures. Because the adequacy ofrevenues is a function of serviceresponsibilities, service deliverystandards or quality relative to acountry�s economic performance is a


common measurement for determiningrevenue needs.

� Central-local fiscal transfers: In mosttransitional or developing countries,transfers are an important revenuesource for local governments. Theybecome a perverse source, however, ifthey are merely substitutes for localresource mobilization authority, areused primarily to balance budgetdeficits, or are distributed primarily onpolitical terms. Inter-governmental-transfer reforms typically focus ondeveloping a more predictable system,building incentives for goodmanagement (either with explicitcriteria or by eliminating budget-balancing criteria), and promotingequity among regions or localgovernments that have highly variableeconomic bases. They might also beused as incentives to persuade localauthorities to raise more revenuelocally.

� Local control over financial resources:Increasing local-level managementcontrol over revenues and expendituresis a key issue in decentralization.Although effectiveness and efficiencyare important criteria in assigningresponsibility, revenue flows typicallyare improved through local control overtax-base evaluation, rate setting, andcollections. Similarly, allowing localmanagement of expenditures canincrease responsiveness to local needsand preferences and avoid residualcontrol by national ministries such as,for example, finance and interior.Overall fiduciary responsibility shouldbe maintained by post-audit systems.

c. Creation of a national training and policy/program analytical capacity for localofficials

Strengthening local government officials�analytical skills, management, and operationalcapacity can support both policy reform andservice improvement.

Overall training needs in local governments intransitional and developing countries are vast,yet the human and financial resources to meetthe needs are relatively modest. It is important,therefore, to identify the specific training thatwill have the greatest impact, and couple it withappropriate policy and/or structural reforms.Indeed, training often can be designed tostimulate discussion of these issues, andbrainstorming on how changed local policies andstructures might look.

Because learning needs are vast and ongoing,building capacity to meet them requires carefulthought. Many countries, including Europeancountries such as France and Denmark, haveopted for a centralized local government traininginstitution. This approach is sometimes criticizedfor becoming isolated from local governmentoperations (and, hence, local government needs)and for being rigid in the training offered. Othersystems, such as in the United States, are marketbased.

One solution in developing and transitionalcountries has been to develop a central capacityto identify priorities yet allow for flexibledelivery through training-provider networks.Ideally, training is developed andinstitutionalized within host-countryorganizations that include training and capacitybuilding in their missions. Potential partnersinclude local government associations, NGOs/CSOs, independent foundations, privateconsulting firms, universities, and associatedschools of public administration.


4. Sectoral Entry Points

Some entry points are not directly related to DGprogramming strategy, but may nonethelessfacilitate change in one or more of the threefocus areas. These are �sectoral� entry points. Asectoral entry point takes advantage of anopening in a sector (or some other policyconcern, such as anti-drug efforts) to influencedecentralization, local democratic processes,and/or local government capacity. Activities inhealth care, education, or environmental reform,for example, lead to opportunities to work withlocal and national government officials, toimprove local service provision, and to involvesector-based NGOs in local affairs. The impetusfor programming may differ, but result is thesame: improved democratic local governanceand a stronger national democratic system.

Several factors often drive this approach:

� Lack of funding for or host-countryinterest in decentralization or democracyand governance activities

� Established experience and funding forhealth, education, and other initiatives

� Allies and policy commitments in keysectors

� Expectation that work in areas such ashealth care and education may producetangible results, such as policy andlegislative reform, while also generatingcitizen support and involvement

� Desire to build relationships that cancontribute directly to decentralization,democracy, and local governmentcapacity building activities in the future

An interesting example of a sectoral, or non-DG,entry point can be found in USAID/Panama,where the strategic objective is to improve themanagement and protection of the Panama Canalwatershed. As part of that strategy, the missionis working in several municipalities located inthe watershed to strengthen their capacity toimplement land use plans, particularly solidwaste management.

Entry points vary with strategy. There is nosingle, correct programming approach touncover. DG officers who can carefully identifythat initial strategic doorway(s), however, arebest positioned to select program tactics thatmake sense, garner stakeholder support, and leadto sustainable results.

The Philippines: Legal Reform as an Entry PointUSAID�s entry point in the Philippines was legal and policy reform. The mission worked with legislatorsand within the national bureaucracy to help secure passage of the 1991 Local Government Code, a majordecentralization program. This initial work provided an excellent platform for the subsequent Governanceand Local Democracy project, which is focused on helping municipal government use the new law tobecome more participatory and effective.

Benin: Improved Local Capacity as an Entry PointUSAID�s planned entry point in Benin was the development of local capacity through local humanresource development. The strategy was based on the mission�s belief that the success ofdecentralization would depend on local officials� ability to successfully take advantage of their new servicefunctions. The plan was to develop training opportunities for a range of local actors so that they would bemore prepared for the new local system. As of 1999, five key Beninois decentralization laws werepending.


B. Selecting Program Tactics

Keeping with the organization of the handbook,this section on tactical options�the tools of thetrade�are organized according to the threestrategic focus areas: creating a favorablenational enabling environment, developingdemocratic local governance, and building localgovernment capacity. This discussion builds onthe preceding sub-section on entry points. Inaddition, a table containing a list of tools for theDG officer to consider follows the discussion ofeach strategy area.

1. Creating a Favorable NationalEnabling Environment

The three major possibilities for formal reformaimed at achieving decentralization include

� Constitutional reform

� New legislation

� New or revised administrative laws,regulations, and policy initiatives

National legal reform can pave the way forimprovements at the local level. The enactmentof new legislation is easier to achieve thanconstitutional change. On the other hand,constitutional reform is much stronger and moredifficult to reverse than simple legislation, whichmay be more easily modified or ignored.Administrative or operational change is theeasiest to affect, but it is also the easiest toignore or reverse.

a. Constitutional reform

Because constitutional reform implies historicnational redefinition of governmental structuresand responsibilities in response to major nationalconcerns, it is less susceptible to influence fromoutside. In some countries, USAID may be ableto significantly influence the reform process. In

others, such efforts may not be feasible, and thusDG officers might look to help institutionalizethe reforms following their adoption.

Constitutional reform favoring decentralizationor democratic local governance may indicate asolid commitment to change in this area. Itprovides strategic opportunities to apply thefollowing tools:

� Promote the implementation of theappropriate reform provisions. If newelections are under consideration orscheduled, that process may needsupport. If new responsibilities are to betransferred to the local level, that, too,may require assistance to a particularoffice or ministry.

� Promote public awareness of and debateon the reform, its implications forgovernance, and the implementationschedule. Increased publicunderstanding or pressure for changecan help soften political opposition andensure the reforms are instituted.

If a choice among these activities is required,DG officers should favor those activities thatbest promote implementation of constitutionalreform. Failure to implement reforms is one ofthe major shortcomings of decentralizationefforts.

b. New legislation

New legislation can establish fundamentaldecentralization principles, strengthen localgovernance, and revise the relationships betweenthe central and local governments. The scope fordonor support is much greater here, and donorshave had major influences on the text andimplementation of new laws. Assistance can

� Help define the extent ofdecentralization and the new


governmental roles and inter-governmental relationships that emerge

� Help draft provisions of new localgovernment and local electoral law

� Help develop a law to address thefunding constraints under which localgovernments operate (A new law mightincrease inter-governmental financialtransfers or enhance their revenue-generating authority.)

� Help modify other pertinent laws, suchas party reform and the enabling statutesof line ministries, that may beconstraining decentralization and thedevelopment of democratic localgovernance

Choosing among these options will be bestdetermined by the specific in-countryopportunities presented and the relations USAIDhas with host-country agencies. DG officerscould, for example, look to build ties toministries that may be more supportive ofdecentralizing legal reform. In particular,opportunities to influence the outcome of a newlocal finance law should be exploited.

c. New and revised administrative laws,regulations, and policy initiatives

Decentralization and local governance reformusually require substantial revision ofregulations and procedures. The issuance ofregulations is, therefore, an important adjunct todecentralization through the legal reformsmentioned above. Because they are issued in amuch more adaptable fashion than reform of thelegal code, the opportunity for a USAID role isusually good where relations with relevantministries are positive.

Some programming options include

� Helping ministries issue andcommunicate to the local level therevised and typically complexregulations on new governmental roles

� Focusing support on regulatory areasthat are especially important todecentralization and democratic localgovernance, such as civil serviceregulations, administrative law systems,and planning and budgeting

� Helping ensure that regulations andprocedural rules are not crafted tomodify or thwart the intent of newlyenacted legislation

If an effort to weaken the reform becomes anissue in the country, this latter option should bethe priority. Successful implementation of thefirst two options hinges on the willingness ofnational government agencies to enter intoreform of civil service regulations and otherareas that may not be directly related to thedecentralization effort. The first option is likelyto be necessary under any circumstances.

Table 3 provides a series of programming toolsfor consideration in creating a better enablingenvironment.

National or regional associations can take on amajor lobbying role on behalf of the localgovernments they represent. They may workcontinuously to engage the central governmentin discussions of legal reform that will helpstrengthen local democracy. They can, then,enhance the environment for decentralization.Local governments in many countries haveneither the resources nor the experience onwhich to build effective associations. It shouldbe noted that associations may also includeindependent foundations committed to local


government reform, freedom of information, andcitizen participation. For approaches and tools inproviding assistance, see the local governmentcapacity-building discussion provided later inthis section.

It may be that legal reform in areas notspecifically addressing local government canhave as great an impact as local governmentlegislation itself. Some commons tools for workin this area include

� Support for the development, passage,and implementation of legislationrelated to open records and openmeetings, news media rights andstandards, NGOs, and CSOs

� Work with government, NGOs, privatebusiness, and other donors to develop acomprehensive national anti-corruption

program or targeted anti-corruptionlegislation aimed at specific processes,such as government procurement (TheCenter�s publication, A Handbook onFighting Corruption (USAID, 1999a),provides additional ideas forprogramming consideration.)

� Support for the development, passage,and implementation of sector-specificlegislation, such as health care oreducation laws, that can lead todecentralization in that sector andperhaps decentralization on a broaderscale

� Support for the inclusion andimplementation of standard publicaccess guarantees for importantdecentralization-related norms,particularly in the areas of finance andadministrative process

TABLE 3: Programming Tools for Creating Favorable National Enabling Environment

Policy research, analysis, and dialogue:� Examine current issues and problems of

decentralization operations in the hostcountry; explore relevant experiences inother countries; and suggest remedies

� Coordinate roundtables, workshops, andissues forums to join stakeholders inidentifying problems and possible solutions

� Provide research-based advocacy for policychange where appropriate

Technical assistance:� Supply model constitutional provisions,

regulations, or laws� Provide consultancies to leading central

government branches (e.g., Ministry ofJustice, Ministry of Finance, Office of thePresident, Legislative Assembly)

� Assist non-governmental public policyresearch institutes or U.S.-based privatevoluntary organizations that operate withinthe country

� Conduct comparative analysis of the existinglegislative framework

� Assist relevant local government ministry inredefinition of its mission, roles, and

responsibilities and in long-term strategicplanning

� Assist local civic groups in understandingtheir new roles and responsibilities and ineducating local citizenry

Technical studies:� Provide technical studies (e.g., guidebooks

on decentralization, new local functions, ordemocratic practice)

� Conduct detailed analysis for host-countryuse on issues such as local governmentstructure, its new role, and inter-governmental relations

Training:� Conduct seminars and workshops for

decision-makers and provide visitingprofessors and other experts on legal reformissues

� Conduct seminars and conferences onimplementation and/or regulatory review

� Provide training to staff of policy researchinstitutes or other institutions that can assistgovernment in drafting regulations and laws


2. Developing Democratic LocalGovernance

The development of democratic localgovernance requires increasingly responsive,accountable, participatory, and effective localgovernment. That is, it calls for improved localgovernment-citizen interaction, thestrengthening of media reporting on localgovernment and community affairs, and buildingan active, more pluralistic civil society.

a. Local government-citizen interaction

Such interaction is essential to democratic localgovernance. In many developing world societies,citizen involvement�and the public officialexpectation of community involvement�istraditionally weak or nonexistent, oftencharacterized by passivity or intimidation. Theobjective is to get local officials to seek out andeventually expect public participation. Thelocality needs to become involved, expect resultsfrom its elected leaders, and develop a collectivesense of community. Over time, throughcontinual learning-by-doing, democraticgovernance can develop. Table 4 provides someoptions for programming in this area.

b. Local government and the media

Developing responsive and accountablegovernment requires an informed public. Localofficials must inform the community about localaffairs and about their efforts to address citizensconcerns. Citizens, in turn, must have access toinformation to be able to act on their interests. Inmany developing countries, in large part becausethe media are poorly developed or are dominatedby particular interests, transparency is extremelyweak. Neither local government officials northeir constituents fully appreciate the value ofinformation to local affairs. The promotion ofactive, independent media to cover local affairscan help address the lack of transparency. Someprogramming options are provided in Table 4.

c. Civil society organizations

The existence of an active, pluralistic civilsociety is believed to be closely related to thesuccessful emergence of democratic practice. Ahealthy civil society can help shape and focusthe energies of concerned citizens and ensurepublic accountability to the community. In manydeveloping countries, however, civil society isweak, and characterized by clientelism and apredominance of individualistic interests.Communities frequently lack civicconsciousness or contain an assortment of self-serving organizations that have little concern forthe public good. The question is how to promotea civil society that can lead to democratic localgovernance. Some programming options can befound in Table 4.

3. Building Local Government Capacity

Developing democratic local governancerequires improving the financial standing oflocal governments so that they can carry outtheir responsibilities, especially the delivery ofpublic services, effectively. It requiresdeveloping their general management,operational, and policymaking capacity. It alsoneeds the support of societal organizations, frombusinesses to universities, that share theirinterests and experiences.

a. Resource mobilization

Local government can do little without money topay for its functions. Many developing-worldlocal governments receive financial transfersfrom the central government, but the levels areinsufficient or so use-conditioned that localautonomy is highly restricted. Localgovernments almost invariably need to doconsiderable work in developing their own-revenue sources through improved local tax andfee collection systems, improving efficiency ofresource use, and increasing access to credit.Revenue generated locally can prompt citizens


TABLE 4: Programming Tools for Developing Democratic Local Governance

Policy reform:� Support reform of electoral process and

procedures to increase responsiveness oflocally elected officials

� Build capacity of national electoral commissionsto organize and oversee elections at local levels

Policy dialogue:� Advocate policies to establish local institutions

that can organize and articulate citizen concernsin a constructive manner and bring these tobear on the formation of local policy

� Promote civic education to improve citizenunderstanding of the functions of localgovernment and the obligations of responsiblecitizenry

General technical assistance:� Help create watchdog mechanisms that

promote transparent and accountablegovernment by spotlighting malpractice andadvocating reform

� Provide technical assistance to civicassociations and the NGO sector on practicalmatters such as NGO registration procedures,tax exemption law, comparative charitable-giving legislation, and fundraising practices

� Work to strengthen organizations of civicassociations so that they can develop networksof information exchange and promote jointaction among rural and other communityorganizations

� Support local institutions that play a partnershiprole with local government in the delivery ofservices

Government-citizen communication technicalassistance:

� Promote consultation mechanisms so citizenscan express their satisfaction or dissatisfactionwith local government programs

� Help strengthen public (both citizen and media)access to public meetings and records

� Promote local government procedures thatallow citizens to provide input before decisionsare made about resource allocation, andestablish oversight procedures

� Build capacity at all levels of government todisseminate information (e.g., press releases,bulletins) regularly to citizens and other levels ofgovernment

Information-distribution technical assistance:� Help build mechanisms to disseminate the

results of government decisions to citizens� Seek to make information about local

government performance readily available� Support the role of local government

associations as advocates of transparentgovernance and communicators of democraticlocal governance experiences, innovations, andbest practices

� Support organizations that can educate thecommunity, advocate the growth of democraticlocal governance, and oppose efforts to reversefavorable trends

Government-media relations technicalassistance:

� Support development of municipal press centers� Create opportunities for local government and

media to partner on public information andparticipation programs

� Develop associations of city communication,public, and press relations professionals

� Conduct a study tour that includes localgovernment officials and the media to examineother countries� approaches to local governmentand media relations

Training:� Provide training to government officials to

establish and monitor performance standardsand codes of conduct

� Link management training with subsequentmatching grant support to enhance impact andsustainability (i.e., scaling-up)

� Provide on-site management training to localofficials in pro-democratic governance topicsranging from public accountability toparticipatory planning

� Provide off-site participant training or studytours, preferably in the region and perhaps inthe United States

Sub-project grants:� Use small matching grants early on to build

organizational capacity� Provide larger grants to established partners for

specific initiatives with clear performancemilestones

� Provide grants to organizations that can helpreplicate pilot activities


to monitor more closely how their money isspent. Table 5 illustrates some of theprogramming options available in this area.

b. Service delivery

The ability of local governments to deliver orimprove the existing delivery of public servicesis crucial to generating democratic legitimacywithin the community. In many developingcountries, local governments are scarcelyinvolved in providing anything other than themost basic public services. Their capacity to doso is often weak. With decentralization,however, many local governments are beingcalled on to become involved in new areas. It iscritical that they do so as effectively as possible.Table 5 exhibits some of the options available.

c. Policy, planning, and management

Many countries in the developing world lack thetechnical know-how to develop policy, instituteplanning processes, and carry out generaladministrative duties, such as budgetpreparation. Personnel often are poorly trained;turnover is high. These technical skills areessential, however, to the development ofgovernmental institutions. How are localgovernments to obtain them? Table 5 providesoptions to consider.

d. Institutional sustainability

As we have seen, particularly in low-incomejurisdictions or where education levels are low,enhancing human capacity is critical for localinstitutional development. Institutionalsustainability requires moving beyond thesimple training of public and communityorganization officials, however. It also meanshelping local actors themselves develop thecapacity to train staff and otherwiseprofessionally support the long-term, effectivefunctioning of the local administration. Table 5includes a variety of options to consider.

e. Local government and professionalassociations

National or regional associations of localgovernments and professional organizations canbe of great value in strengthening the capacity oflocal government. They provide local officialswith somewhere to turn for advice and technicalsupport to address capacity-related questions.They can support a strategy for replicatingnationwide successful experiences in USAIDpilot local governments. Associations providetraining, manuals, conferences, and newsletters.They share best practices and promoteprofessional standards and codes.

If a mission is considering helping create orsupport an association, a number ofconsiderations should be kept in mind. The DGofficer should consider the level of politicizationof the prospective association and ensure that itdoes not benefit political parties or interests atthe expense of local government system as awhole. The association should reflect the localsystem�s political demographics. It should beable to secure the participation of a largemajority of the country�s local governments,provide valued services in exchange formembership fees, and eventually become self-sustaining. Refer to Table 5 for some sampleprogramming tools. For more detail on finance,credit, and service delivery, see the publicationsof USAID�s Office of Environment and UrbanPrograms in the list of references and web sitesat the end of this handbook.


TABLE 5: Programming Tools for Building Local Government Capacity

Policy research:� Examine finance, resource management, service

delivery, and other priority trends in the hostcountry and similar countries

� Examine availability and reliability of financialdata

� Use workshops and field studies to help the hostcountry define priority structural and policychanges

Policy dialogue:� Conduct workshops and other fora to bring

stakeholders together to develop a commonunderstanding of options and action plans forfiscal, management, and operational reform

� Conduct dialogue at all governmental levels onfiscal reform, economic growth strategies, andequity issues

Technical assistance:� Help develop alternative fiscal and revenue

systems and related regulations� Provide legal assistance to revise municipal

finance legislation� Support development of property registry

systems, tax mechanisms, and revenuecollection systems

� Assist with evaluation of local fiscal conditionsand implementation of open and transparentbudget processes

� Support capital improvement planning andfinancing of infrastructure improvements

� Help strengthen local governments� fiscal statusto enable them to qualify for a bond rating

� Assist in the establishment of a secondarymunicipal bond market

� Provide sample policies and models of municipalcreditworthiness

� Support technical �twinning� to transfer skills andexperience on practical management andoperations priorities

� Create and facilitate management and operationsteams charged with developing and testinginnovations and sharing experiences

� Bring �state-of-the-science� techniques, appropri-ate technology, and best practice studies tothose responsible for specific municipal services

Training:� Present finance models on a firsthand basis

through targeted training in technical areas� Lead regional study tours designed to develop an

operational understanding of local governmentfinance, budget, and interactive communicationwith citizen-customers of local services

� Conduct seminars and workshops on suchsubjects as customer orientation, quality circles,performance management, and service delivery

planning� Bring together representatives of local govern-

ment, NGOs, business, the news media, andothers for training and action planning to enhanceresults through improved relationships andcommunication

� Conduct training needs assessment(s) in aconsensus-building manner to build understand-ing of and support for training

� Develop useful, priority training modules thatintegrate new approaches and new trainingtechniques

Financial assistance:� Invest in and install management systems in key

areas such as accounting and finance, propertymanagement, and cash investment

Private sector and NGO development:� Promote techniques for �reinventing� local

government, such as partnering NGOs andbusiness, service contracting, sale of enterprises,franchising, and small business development

� Explore and work to institute mechanisms toencourage private investment in areas such asjob creation and provision of infrastructure indesignated commercial/industrial areas

� Support development of consulting organizationsand think tanks that support local governmentcapacity development

Support for local government associations:� Bring in-service training, reorientation, and

validation to local government professionals suchas finance directors, public works engineers,community planners, economic developers, andcommunication and public relations professionals

� Help associations share best practices withintechnical fields

� Provide model legislation for quasi-public bodiesthat receive financial support from appropriatedfunds

� Provide institution-building support throughstrategic planning, organizational development,and strengthening of member relations, commu-nication, and advocacy and lobbying skills

� Assist in establishing technical twinning relation-ships with other local government organizations

� Provide direct grants to existing associations toimprove administrative capacity

� Provide indirect grants through a nationalintermediary group or through the relevantgovernment ministry (e.g., the Ministry of LocalGovernment)

� Conduct management training directly or througha government ministry

� Conduct international training and study tours forassociation leadership


VI. MONITORING ANDEVALUATION

Performance information, which includes bothperformance monitoring and evaluative data, isan essential tool for effective management ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance programs. The reporting aspect ofmonitoring and evaluation is, for example, aparticularly important tool for promotingopenness and citizen-customer awareness andsatisfaction.

Several USAID publications detail Agencyguidelines and procedures for performancemonitoring, its relationship to results reporting,and recommended procedures. 3 Table 6presents a brief summary of monitoring lessonsdrawn from USAID experience (Cook, VanSant,Stewart, and Adrian, 1993).

TABLE 6: Performance Monitoring Do�sand Don�ts

A. Performance Monitoring

Performance management is not only a centralelement of USAID�s results focus, but also akey element of effective governance. Indeed,assisting local governments with performancemanagement is a potential entry point in effortsto help them become more responsive andeffective. Table 7 summarizes ways in whichperformance information can be used byUSAID, partners, and various localstakeholders. In light of the potential benefits,there is real value in USAID involvingcounterparts and other stakeholders in thedesign and implementation of performancemonitoring for governance activities.

B. Performance Evaluation

DG program managers should consider severaltenets that guide the formulation of a frameworkfor evaluating DG activities. The evaluationframework must be user-centered, generatinginformation that stakeholders can use to makedecisions. Stakeholders may be donors, programstaff, program beneficiaries, citizens,community groups, or local governmentofficials. The framework, therefore, shouldemphasize participation to guarantee that allstakeholders have a meaningful say in DGprogram design and implementation.

The evaluation framework should becomprehensive, covering implementation andimpact issues. Implementation problems, forexample, can be detected early on throughcomprehensive data monitoring. Having theflexibility to adjust to changing conditions�such as a change in national leadership�isimportant. It is also appropriate to think of theframework as an interactive rather than a linear,step-by-step process. One must approach theevaluation framework with the idea: �Learn asyou go and adjust.�

3 See USAID (1998a), Handbook of Democracy andGovernance Program Indicators, which offers extensiveguidance on the use of scales and related tools.

DoEncourage ownership and�champions� at allmanagement levels.

Train agency staff notaccustomed to usingperformance data.

Use a small number ofmeaningful indicators tokeep the system simple.Focus on the vital few.

Use presentations thatare understandable toboth internal and externalaudiences.

Don�tUnderestimate the needfor visible backing fromkey agency and/ormission officials.

Overwhelm managers;each point ofmanagementresponsibility should focuson a few key-resultsareas.

Create a databureaucracy; programmanagers should beinvolved in developingdata-gathering efforts.

Exclude any stakeholdersor partners.


As the evaluation process unfolds and isadjusted, its outputs can contribute toorganizational learning. Analysts should seekcost-effective methods in order to obtain the bestand most relevant information at the least cost.Finally, the framework should be theory-basedand have a sound rationale for the claim thatattempted decentralization or local democraticgovernance development efforts will (if properlyimplemented) produce intended results.

As they proceed, the developers of the scope ofwork for DG program evaluation�usually

USAID staff�should consider the followingquestions:

� Which sector of activity will be thefocus of the evaluation? Policymakersor local governments operate in multiplesectors�from education toenvironmental management totransportation�with varying degrees ofsuccess. Over time, emphasis amongdomains may shift. The scope of workshould specify the domain or domainsthat are its focus.

TABLE 7: Uses of Performance Information in Decentralization and Local Governance

USAID

Manage for anddemonstrateresults

Track progresson SO, IR, andactivityindicators

Communicateresults toUSAID/W,Congress,partners, andcounterparts

Provideinformation forthe ResultsReview andResourcesRequest (R4)

Hold managersaccountable forprogram results

Contractors

Manage for anddemonstrateresults

Benchmark andcompareperformanceover time andagainst targets

Provide earlywarning ofmanagement orperformanceproblems

Report to USAID

Support learningagendas (i.e.,comparativeapproaches,lessons learnedfromimplementation)

Local NGOs andOther Partners

Improveperformance focus

Provide basis forcommunicatingresults tostakeholders andcitizens

Mobilize financialsupport foreffective programs

Account forresources toUSAID or otherfunding agencies

Strengtheninformationmanagement andanalysis capacity

Citizens

Understand thebudget processand constraintsof localgovernment

Make moretargeted andrealisticdemands onlocal resources

Lobby for oragainst projectsor programsthat directlyaffect them

Comparegovernment�sperformancewith similarcities and towns

Municipal Staff

Understand howactions contribute toorganizationalobjectives

Focus on outcomesrather than inputs

Identify programimprovements toincrease customersatisfaction

Enhancecommunicationbetween units toimprove the service-delivery process

Manage complexproblems generatedby competinginterests of citizens

Elected Officials

Use performancereports as a focalpoint for legislativeoversight

Support allocationof resources toprograms that areproducing results

Proposeadjustments to themissions,objectives, orstrategies of publicagencies

Gather informationabout the needsand priorities ofconstituents


� What are the key results to beassessed? An evaluation shouldmeasure progress toward achievementof the objectives and targets establishedin the activity design, as well as towardrelated mission strategic objectives andintermediate results.

� Which perspectives, or constituencypoints of view, will be considered? Asnoted above, perspectives often differwidely. The scope of work shouldspecify which perspectives, both internaland external, will guide the analysis andinfluence the sources of information.

� Which level of analysis will be used?The analysis can focus on an entiresector or on specified agency�s subunits,depending on the government structure.Effectiveness achieved at one level mayor may not correlate with effectivenessat a broader or narrower level.

� What timeframe will be employed?The scope of work should specifywhether the evaluation will beconsidering long-term effectiveness orshort-term productivity, keeping in mindthat the strategies for measuring eachmay be incompatible.

� What type of information will beused? In considering which informationto use, one must remember thatdocumented information on DGprogram activities and effects may differfrom perceptions. The availability andcredibility of each kind of informationwill differ from case to case.

� What will be the point of reference?The assessment may be comparative (toother similar government entities),normative (to a theoretical ideal), goal-

centered (in relation to a stated target),longitudinal (keyed to improvementover time), or trait-related (relative topredefined attributes).

� How will the assessment results beused, and by whom? The results of theDG program evaluation should beprovided in a form that is timely,relevant, and practical for the users.User needs may affect not only thelength and detail of the analyticalpresentation, but also the analysis itself.

� Is the activity suited for evaluation?Are the problems and anticipatedoutcomes of the evaluation suitablydefined to be measurable? Is there aclear management structure to act on theevaluation?

� What is the purpose(s) of theevaluation? The objectives of theevaluation exercise should be clear. Dothey include identifying lessons learned?Is the goal to determine how to adjustongoing activities, for example, or howthey can be replicated in other parts ofthe host country?

C. Performance Indicators

Successful performance monitoring andevaluation require clearly articulated resultsagainst which performance will be assessed.Results provide a basis for collecting data on theneed for a service, the inputs to that service, theservice outputs, and the results. Indicators ofthese results can be used to measure importantdynamics such as the quality of governance oreffectiveness of decentralization.

In their performance monitoring plans, USAIDMissions must define in detail the performancemeasures they will track to monitor the strategicobjectives and intermediate results, together with


information on the source, method, and scheduleof data collection.

Good indicators of results are timely andrelevant and can be measured with quality dataat reasonable cost. They also are understandableto the program stakeholders who will use theperformance information in decision-making orprogram assessment. As such, they must fit aspecific objective, program, and country setting.Useful and effective performance measures areobjective to ensure they are interpreted the sameway by different people. The most importantcriterion is that there is effective demand for theinformation. The quality of supply-driven data isirrelevant; the quality of demand-driven data iscrucial.

Sample performance measures are provided inTable 8; they are organized around the three keydynamics of decentralization and democraticlocal governance. While not comprehensive, thelist illustrates the kind of measures that can beused to assess impact. The sampling is drawnfrom existing USAID projects, experience of theauthors, and the Handbook of Democracy andGovernment Program Indicators, whichprovides a wealth of sample indicators withannotations regarding their applicability, datacollection methods, and other interpretive ideas.(See ordering information back inside cover.)

USAID program managers can use thesesamples as a starting point for establishing aperformance monitoring and evaluation systemspecific to the host country and to a given DGprogram.

D. Setting Targets and Measuring Results

The complex and dynamic nature ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance makes target-setting particularlydifficult. The amount of change to be expectedfrom a given level of activity must be defined aspart of the strategic goal for which assistance is

being provided. A poorly articulated goal makesevaluating decentralization and democratic localgovernance difficult. Quantitative indicatorsoften either do not reveal much or pushmeasurement back to more easily countedoutputs rather than to real results. One way todeal with this problem is to establish adescriptive scale that defines stages of progresstoward an objective. This idea is often put to usefor policy indices that track steps toward thepassage and implementation of a specific policyreform. Scales also have been used to trackinstitutional progress or growth in capacity.

Scales can be especially appropriate for suchdynamics as local government transparency,central government devolution of power,measures of capacity, or level of citizenparticipation in decision-making. For example,USAID�s Office of Environment and UrbanPrograms uses four stages or levels to describethe expected steps that occur along a continuumto achieve a given result. This is helpful formonitoring the status of progress, even though itdoes not by itself indicate the complex factorsthat contribute to achieving the results. Asexamples, stages for three indicators arepresented in Table 9.

A scale normally presents a range of ratingsfrom �low� to �high� or the equivalent on someattribute relevant to what is being measured (forexample, citizen confidence in localgovernment). The stages can also be defined asin Table 10 rather than with a numerical rating.

A scale enables the transformation of complexhuman judgments into numbers that can becombined, averaged, and otherwise processed. Itpermits �quantitative� analysis of answers thatare derived initially from ratings or assessments.A key element in an effective scale is that, at anygiven moment, different persons would score theassessment the same way. This is essential ifcomparative measurements or measurementsover time are to have meaning. For this purpose,


it is useful to define carefully what each point onthe scale means rather than leaving it purely tothe subjective judgment of the rater. Using thesame rater(s) over time or averaging the scoresof several raters are other ways to improve thereliability of this tool.

An example of an overall performancemanagement/evaluation framework for theMunicipal Finance and Management project inthe New Independent States (NIS) is alsoprovided in Table 10. This project involved arange of interventions to achieve four primaryresults: decentralized local government financeand management capacity, local governmenttransparency and accountability, improvement inthe lives of citizens, and sustainability. Table 10summarizes intermediate results and indicatorsused in these four categories. The project is agood example of a performance monitoringsystem tied to the key dynamics ofdecentralization and democratic localgovernance discussed in this handbook.


TABLE 8: Sample Indicators

1. STRENGTHENED NATIONAL ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

Administrative Dimension

� Number of responsibilities specifically reserved to local government (as opposed to central government)

� Number of reforms passed, relative to recommended or promoted reforms

� Number of local government actions overturned by central government

� Scope of responsibilities clearly defined for each level

� Number or percentage of local laws passed without hindrance from central government

� Percentage of local government staff hired independently by local government

� Degree of assignment of functional responsibilities from central government to local government

� Existence of codes of conduct or other legally binding statements for local officials

Financial Dimension

� Increased legislative authority to levy and collect local taxes and fees for local use

� Trends in local own-source revenues

� Percentage of locally generated revenue retained by local governments

� Percentage of residents paying (specified) local taxes

� Degree of independence in use of central government financial transfers

� Percentage of local government budget mandated by central government

� Authority for local debt financing

� Existence of local economic development strategies and incentives

Political Dimension

� Passage of constitutional and legal reforms to transfer power (i.e., local governments have protectedlegal status and specific powers and responsibilities)

� Number or percentage of local government decisions overturned by central government

� Level of authority to accept, reject, or modify central government plans for urban infrastructureconstructed by central agencies

� Level of consultation with associations by local officials on national policy issues

� Laws supporting freedom of association and speech

� Percentage of citizens registered to vote and percentage of registered citizens voting (disaggregated bygender and ethnicity) in local elections

� Percentage of executives, administrators, candidates, and elected officials who are women or minorities


TABLE 8: Sample Indicators (continued)

2. IMPROVED DEMOCRATIC LOCAL GOVERNANCE

� Number and diversity of citizens who make use of local programs, benefits, and services

� Percentage of citizens participating in local political activity

� Public policies changed consistent with advocacy of citizen organizations

� Number and diversity of citizens and organizations involved in local strategic planning/oversight

� Public perceptions of corruption practiced in service provision, as reported in opinion polls

� Level of access to or participation in development of local government services delivery (disaggregatedby gender, location of residence, ethnicity, etc.)

� Portion of annual budget with local governments involving citizen participation

� Number and diversity of citizens involved in decision-making task forces or commissions

� Percentage of local governments holding formal meetings with grassroots organizations

� Percentage of citizens in a local area who feel that local authority is addressing their priority concerns

� Independent audits accurately documenting local government performance are made public

3. INCREASED LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY

� Availability of local government budgets and financial reports to councilors, the public, and the media

� Existence of internal and external auditing in accordance with required schedules

� Number or percentage of post-audit actions taken

� Proportion of local government executive posts for which recruitment is based on clear job descriptions,professional merit

� Existence of a citizen complaint mechanism and use of that input to affect policy or service delivery

� Response time to citizen complaints

� Existence of transparent financial systems and full reporting to citizens

� Percentage of local revenue generated by local government

� Percentage of local operating costs covered by local revenue

� Percentage of population satisfied with particular services (disaggregated to ensure equity of access)

� Documented performance standards and systems of measurement

� Actual performance (results) reported to public

� Percentage of local staff completing relevant skills training, and evidence of use of that training

� Measurement of citizen satisfaction with local government effectiveness, responsiveness,accountability, and communication


TABLE 9: Sample Target Scale4

Sample National Enabling Environment Indicator: Degree of independence municipalities and theircitizens have to make investment decisions.

Stage 1Investment decisions are dictated, directed, orcarried out by central government.

Stage 2Central government recognizes need to grantautonomy to localities. Central government hasexpanded level of consultation with local govern-ment and allows some degree of local governmentdecision-making.

Stage 3Local governments exercise significant autonomyin investment decisions. Commitment by centralgovernments to expand autonomy is incorporatedinto national policy.

Stage 4Local governments act autonomously in makinginvestment decisions with support from centralgovernment consistent with national policy.

Sample Democratic Local Governance Indicator: Extent to which women and disenfranchisedgroups are represented in local governments and other decision-making bodies.

Stage 1No women or disenfranchised groups are repre-sented in local government.

Stage 2NGOs or other numbers of the public have indi-cated that women or disenfranchised groups areunder-represented in local government.

Stage 3Women or disenfranchised groups are on theballots to be elected as local government officials.

Stage 4The percentage of women or disenfranchisedgroups in local government positions and otherdecision-making bodies has increased and contin-ues to grow.

Sample Local Government Capacity Indicator: Degree to which public budget and decision-makingprocesses are effectively carried out.

Stage 1No public meetings or printed materials on budgetare available.

Stage 2Budget is properly prepared and printed in news-papers or available at local or central governmentministry offices.

Stage 3City council includes one citizen at-large seat orother formal community representation mechanismat annual budget hearings.

Stage 4Citizen initiatives or positions are gathered andincorporated into budget documents and theplanning and approval process.

4 This scale is adapted from the 1998 Results Framework, an operational document of the Office of Environmentand Urban Programs of the USAID�s Global Environment Center.


TABLE 10: Municipal Finance and Management in the New Independent States�Performance Monitoring

Goals

1. Strengthen accountability and control by keeping track of results compared with plans and objectives2. Improve decision-making by clarifying information on objectives, alternatives, and consequences3. Enhance performance by improving implementation and methods4. Build understanding of municipal finance and management by providing information of significance to

various stakeholders and audiences

Result 1: Decentralized local government finance and management capacity

Intermediate Results

1.1 Increased use of good management and financepractices and systems for local decision-making

1.2 Improved local government policies, regulations,and procedures

1.3 Greater transaction processing and informationsystems capacity

1.4 Organizational structures and approaches bettersuited for democratic local governance in a free-market economic system

Indicators/Measurement

� Adoption of new approaches and practices adaptedto local needs

� More timely data availability� Increased analysis of financial data� Performance-based budgeting in place� Service fees related to costs of services

� Reviews of current policy conducted� Legislative changes identified� Increased local control of and responsibility for

finance and management

� Information system plan in place� Organizational framework established for

management information systems� Systems up and running� Increased use of management information to guide

decisions

� Organizational systems reviewed� Management development programs in place� Means established for handling citizen complaints

Result 2: Local government transparency/accountability

2.1 Increased public knowledge of and participationin budgeting and municipal decision-making

2.2 Increased public influence on municipal serviceoutcomes

2.3 Clearly defined lines of authority andresponsibility for public officials

2.4 Performance monitoring conducted

� Budgets published and available to public� Open budget processes (public hearings)� Fully auditable financial records� Competitive bidding processes used

� Referenda on major issues� Open media coverage of local government issues

� Open publication of service data and results� Public organizational charts

� Performance monitoring systems in place� Performance monitoring information available to

public

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


TABLE 10 (continued)

Goals

1. Strengthen accountability and control by keeping track of results compared with plans and objectives2. Improve decision-making by clarifying information on objectives, alternatives, and consequences3. Enhance performance by improving implementation and methods4. Build understanding of municipal finance and management by providing information of significance to

various stakeholders and audiences

Result 3: Improvement in the lives of citizens

Indicators/Measurement

� Quality improvements� Increases in service levels and number served� Cost-effectiveness improvements� Fee-based service levels improved� Increased citizen access to selected services

� Economic development plans developed andimplemented

� Capital improvement plans developed/implemented� Levels of private sector participation increased

Intermediate Results

3.1 Improved public service delivery

3.2 Improved economic status of city/municipality

Result 4: Sustainability

4.1 Project innovations incorporated into localgovernment organizational structure, legalframework, practices, and budget

4.2 Recurrent maintenance and support costs ofautomated data processing (ADP) and othersystems incorporated in local governmentbudgets

4.3 Training institutionalized, and municipal financeand management training available in localgovernment or in-country institutions

� Documented new procedures� Budget reform� Management and organizational innovations

� Operations and maintenance of ADP systemscovered in local government budgets

� Links to local institutions established� Programs of management training in place� Public management and operations training

available

Process Issues1. Make defining of standards and indicators a collaborative effort with local government counterparts2. Place identification of benchmark status in each city on early agenda of field teams working with

counterparts3. Build ownership and capacity among municipal counterparts around defining and implementing

monitoring agenda4. Involve league of cities in baseline data collection and analysis (benchmarking) and in reporting of

progress

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


VII. LESSONS LEARNED

Decentralization experience in countries aroundthe world and the experience of USAID andother donors with programming activitiesprovide a wealth of important lessons that canguide future efforts. The following is a list�byno means an exclusive list�of generalprogramming lessons we have learned:

� Take advantage of and encouragepolitical will. Capitalize on the existingpolitical will for reform. Take advantageof a positive climate as rapidly aspossible. Since political winds can shiftwith little lead time, one may soon facea rising wall of opposition. The degreeand type of local governanceprogramming will often be determinedlargely by the political will of the hostcountry. Efforts to sustain political will(e.g., lobbying national leaders andministry officials) should be continual.

� Show results. Citizens� trust in localgovernment and their willingness to payfor what it does can be enhancedthrough visible, fast-yielding, priorityinvestments in the community. Concreteresults help establish the localgovernment�s legitimacy. This factshould not, however, be an invitation forpoliticized investment planning.

� Emphasize revenue generation. Localgovernment income generation shouldbe a priority. Increased financialautonomy�to assess taxes or fees andcollect them�allows local officials toaddress community needs with greatereffectiveness. Activities should includeemphasis on the responsive andresponsible expenditure of all revenuereceived.

Showing Results throughCommunication in Bulgaria

As one of the pilot cities in USAID/Bulgaria�sLocal Government Initiative, the municipality ofStara Zagora has taken a comprehensiveapproach to informing citizens and involvingthem in choices related to downtowndevelopment, the annual budget process, andconversion to natural gas for heating. As part ofits program, the city has established a city hallpublic information and press office. The cityrelies increasingly on press releases, weeklynews conferences, publication of the councilagenda, citizen surveys, televised publichearings with viewer call-in features, and otherlive fora to share information.

Faced with public confusion, mistrust, and someresistance to a natural gas conversion project,the city and a USAID-sponsored assistanceteam worked with NGOs, businessrepresentatives, and others to develop acommunication and citizen-involvement strategyto respond to community concerns, whichincluded traffic disruption and inconvenient streetcuts, and to involve them in the project.

Tactics included publication and wide distributionof frequently asked questions, a public debate bythe local high school debate team on the meritsof natural gas, and a citizen-oriented ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating conversion of thefirst public facility (a kindergarten). With USAIDtechnical support, the municipality hostedtraining workshops on practices in localgovernment regulatory affairs, rate setting, andpublic safety and natural gas. The pressparticipated in news briefings associated witheach workshop.

Results: An independent citizen surveyconducted four months after the launch of theinformation and involvement campaign revealedStara Zagora citizens considered the USAID-supported conversion of municipal facilities tonatural gas the number one communityaccomplishment of the year. Conversion oftargeted public building and related energyefficiency and regulatory efforts continued withnews media and community support.


� Build local government momentum.Emergence of a local governmentmovement is often critical to long-termsuccess. Programming should helpcreate or sustain the momentum. Theenactment of decentralization legislationand attendant national debate oftenprovide or renew the impetus forsustained reform. Local governmentassociations can be powerful advocatesfor change at the national level, and theycan provide valuable support to localgovernment institutions.

� Help inform the public. Work with thelocal news media to develop andconduct public education strategies (e.g.,campaigns and informationalworkshops) to raise awareness of reformand its potential benefits. Promoteunderstanding and support fordecentralization and local governance.

� Work at as many governmental levelsas possible. Resource limitations arealways a concern, but programmingshould help build a favorable enablingenvironment at the national level while

Building Momentum: The HonduranAssociation of Municipalities (AHMON)

One of the most notable successes of USAID/Honduras� Municipal Development project hasbeen the strengthening of the Honduran Asso-ciation of Municipalities (AHMON). A privateassociation of mayors, AHMON promotescollaboration among municipalities, analyzesissues affecting local governments, and lobbiesfor municipal autonomy at the national level.

Founded in 1962, but inactive for three decades,AHMON emerged in the early 1990s as thesingle most effective organization to press for fullimplementation of the Municipal Reform Law.Key to AHMON�s new vitality as a nationalorganization was the management training andfunding of USAID�s municipal project. Noworganized into a general assembly of mayorswith a board of directors, AHMON has sought tobecome self-sufficient by collecting a percentageof the national revenues the central governmenttransfers to member municipalities. AHMON�slobbying influence in the Honduran Congress isgrowing.

The association has used civic education andmedia exposure to increase public support forthe continued autonomy of municipalities and toencourage citizens to vote for the most qualifiedcandidates, as opposed to party slates. AHMONhas a program of national radio, and mayorspublicize their development projects on localstations. The organization has become so wellknown that indigenous minorities have requestedits assistance. The public support it receives hasbeen important in defending local governanceagainst the rear-guard actions of central agen-cies attempting to recentralize control.

AHMON continues to be the strongest and mostindependent advocate for decentralization andmunicipal development in Central America. As aleader of the national municipal movement,AHMON is expected to continue to play animportant role in the country�s democraticdevelopment.

Source: Lippman and Pranke (1998) andmission reporting.

Informing Citizens through CommunityInvolvement in Ecuador and Tunisia

Community involvement in the management ofenvironmental pollution in Ecuador and Tunisiabegan with training that stressed communication,dialogue, problem analysis, and development ofproblem-solving skills to create effective teamsof municipal technical staff, NGOs, andcommunity representatives.

Stakeholders worked in partnership to identifyand address environmental health risks fromcholera to waste management. Since exchangeof information was built into the approach, publicawareness and understanding increased ashealth results were achieved.


simultaneously working with localofficials to take advantage of newdevelopments. Working at all levelsproduces the best results.

� Promote accountability. Supportmechanisms that directly promoteparticipatory and accountablegovernment and build partnershipsbetween local government and othersectors (e.g., regular public meetingswith CSOs, formal grievanceprocedures, hearings on major issues,participatory planning and budgeting,and opinion surveys).

� Do not assume that building on the bestis always best. To help ensure success,USAID and other donors often target themost promising local sites for assistance.This strategy heightens the chances thatthe seeds of reform will grow only infertile spots. It offers little to marginal orless progressive communities. Since the

The Slow Pace of Change in Paraguay

Paraguay is emerging from a long history ofoppression and a tradition of caudillo leadership(strong one-person rule). For almost 50 years,the political and military dictatorship dominatedevery aspect of life through the centralizedgovernment. Since the early 1990s, the countryhas struggled to create a multiparty democraticsystem. In the past five years, internationaldonors have begun to support decentralizationand local government initiatives, which havefaced a variety of deep-seated institutionalobstacles as well.

Paraguay�s decentralization and democratic localgovernance programming offers an interestingcomparison of two distinct activities. Bothactivities also demonstrate the slow pace ofreform and change found in many countries.

Public Health: A new health law in 1997, whichwas then followed by administrative regulations,pointed to a sectoral entry point fordecentralization. But administrative, financial,and political authorities were never substantiallydevolved to the local health councils that the lawcreated. Political will in the ministry dissolved,foreshadowed by national events. The onlyadvocates for municipal-managed healthclinics�local government officials�lacksufficient political power and local resources tobreak the impasse. The organization of municipalinterests is only now effectively beginning.

Community Development: The secondprogram, which used the strategic planningmodel with active citizen, neighborhood, andmunicipal participation, demonstrates thecatalytic power of grassroots organization.Introduced to the planning ideas, the pilotcommunities became energized; local leadershipemerged; local resources were mobilized; andcivic improvements were completed. Althoughthe project seeks to fundamentally change therelationship between the citizens and their localofficials, the technical assistance is veryintensive, the level of sustainability has not beentested, and much remains to be done.

Financial Accountability in RussiaThe Municipal Finance and Management projectin Russia worked directly with eight citygovernments to help them restructure and learnmodern financial management practices thatemphasize accountability to citizens forgovernment performance. Budgets werepublished and debated in public hearings, whilecitizens provided input into proposedexpenditure and revenue policy.

Citizen-public Dialogue, West AfricaIn West Africa, where a crisis of confidence inpublic institutions pervades, training sessionswere successfully conducted to allow businessinterests and citizens to hold official dialoguewith locally elected officials and administrativestaff. A key issue was managing and financingpublic facilities, such as public markets,slaughterhouses, and transport facilities.


most promising sites typically areexceptional cases, programming resultsare less likely to serve as models for therest of the country.

� Realize that change is slow.Decentralization and development oflocal governance are lengthy processesof incremental institutional change.Institutional reform requires not onlylegal reform and implementation, butalso the emergence of a new politicalculture. This can take many years andmeasuring short-term results isextremely difficult. Yet, thoughtfuldesign of sensitive indicators can

Filipino GOLD: Building on Previous Program Activities

The Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) project follows a long-standing tradition of USAID supportfor decentralization in the Philippines, most recently through the Local Development and Assistanceprogram (LDAP) and Decentralized Shelter and Urban Development (DSUD) project. LDAP and DSUDactivities focused on policy, or the passage of the proposed Local Government Code. Following the code�senactment�with the key reforms in place�the mission moved to support the new set of policies throughthe GOLD program. GOLD primarily supports local government units in the implementation of the code.

Working directly with local government units as opposed to national government ministries, GOLDfocuses on democratic local governance. Based on previous experience and an extensive consultativeprocess during the design phase, USAID/Philippines saw GOLD as an intensive effort to demonstrate thatdemocracy works and that transparent decision-making results in more unified, legitimate, and equitablepolicies and programs. The mission wanted to show that government can become more responsive topeople�s expressed needs and must be held accountable for its performance.

GOLD also shifted the focus from national policy reform to assisting local governments, leagues ofgovernments, and local community organizations in coming together to address common municipalproblems, implement policy reforms, and enhance the effectiveness of local advocacy for citizen interests.The project steering committee included both national agencies and local government units as well asrepresentatives from leagues of governments and NGOs.

GOLD represents an important �learning laboratory� for the broader USAID emphasis on democratic localgovernance. Donors have a long history of supporting administrative and financial decentralization in thePhilippines. The USAID/Philippines program�s value is that it moves beyond local governmentadministration and service delivery concerns to support institutions and structures that enable individualsto decide and do things for themselves. Activities are based on treating people not as beneficiaries in thetraditional sense, but as citizen stakeholders.

Source: VanSant, Blair, Razon-Abad, and Amani (1998)

register change and provide incentivesfor continued work.

� Build on prior assistance activities. Anearly series of activities should beviewed as a building block for a largerfuture program. One activity can buildon the next, or two activities can work intandem for greater impact. A programmay begin by promoting legal reform toimprove the enabling environment, and,once the national reforms are in place, itmay turn to assisting a select group ofjurisdictions. Later, for long-termsustainability, local government orprofessional association developmentmay be the focus of activities.


VIII.PROGRAMMINGISSUES

The following is a series of issues that areimportant to any discussion of decentralizationand local democracy and that consistently arisewhen USAID considers country programming inthis area. We give them some consideration herewith the hope they will broaden understanding,provide impetus to the continuing debate, andassist in the improvement of program activitiesin the future.

� Promoting decentralization. Shoulddecentralization always be promoted?As outlined below, there are a numberof concerns about the potential impact ofdecentralization. Democratic theory tellsus that decentralized government willimprove democracy. Developmentexperience at times provides a lessfavorable view. As explained at theoutset of this handbook, however, weare in many ways in a new era fordecentralization throughout much of theworld. Is the jury still out?

� Inequity. A strong case can be madethat granting greater autonomy to localjurisdictions, and therefore to donorefforts, can exacerbate territorialinequality. Wealthy local governmentsgenerally have more resources at theirdisposal and access to better educatedpersonnel than do poor ones. Inproviding services and improving thequality of life for residents, they can usethese advantages to pull much furtherahead of less-advantaged counterparts.Low-income areas, meanwhile, facemany disadvantages, from minimalresources, to lack of investmentopportunities, to a relatively less-educated population, and to greatersocial and infrastructure needs.

� National quality standards for publicservices. Decentralization should notallow the weakening of national controlover quality standards in education,health, and other key service areas.Enhanced local autonomy should notgive rise to a multitude of standards thatcan seriously undermine the quality oflife across the country. Doesdecentralization necessarily lead to thissituation and, if so, how should donorsreact?

� Local authoritarianism. Doesdecentralization give traditionallyensconced local bosses a freer rein tocontrol public resources and dominatelocal political life? Where is thedemocracy in instances wheredemocratic tradition is weak ornonexistent? Depending on traditions orthe nature of government at the nationallevel, the new, decentralized localcontext may be a relative improvement.The opportunity for change may begreater as local officials and citizensgain awareness of the new local systemand how it should ideally operate.

� Scaling-up. How do local governanceinnovations spread from one locality toanother? What makes one localgovernment adopt the practices ofanother, and how can they be promotednationwide? USAID and other donorsoften select a series of pilot jurisdictionsin which to work. This approach oftenassumes a demonstration effect based onthe premise that successful practice inthe pilots will be adopted in many�ifnot all�of the country�s communities.Evidence suggests this transfer of ideasrarely occurs without some externalimpetus. Is the premise on which it isbased valid? What are the lessons to bedrawn from those instances in which


replication reportedly has occurred?Does improved national democracyresult? Can better planning during thepilot phase help overcome this problem?

� National cohesion. Decentralization is arecipe, some argue, for the erosion ofterritorial sovereignty. Accordinggreater authority to local governmentscan give rise to demands for secessionor independence, particularly inculturally diverse or geographicallyextended countries. On the other hand,others argue, allowing distant regionsgreater freedom to act on their ownaffairs may lessen historical demandsfor separation.

� Local elections. Should local electionsbe required for USAID to beginprogramming activities indecentralization and the development ofdemocratic local governance? Electionsare ultimately essential to the emergenceof democratic governance. The absenceof local elections does not, however,prevent USAID from becominginvolved at the local level because suchinvolvement may lay the groundworkfor a larger programming DG effortonce elections are convened.

� Cross-sectoral programming.Increasing numbers of USAID Missionsappear to be addressing democratic localgovernance from a sectoral vantagepoint. Missions are pursuing localsectoral programming and localgovernment democratic processtogether�combining DG resources withresources in areas such as health care,education, and water and sanitation.There seems to be an increasingrecognition of the practical value ofsupporting improved, moredemocratically operated local service

delivery. Is this a significant trend inprogramming? Are the results better, asone might expect, than we find whenthere is a separation of sectoral anddemocracy work?

� Moving from local to nationaldemocracy. What is the link betweenbuilding democratic local governanceand the nation�s democracy as a whole?As discussed above, decentralization is adirect tool for democracy-buildingthrough the development of democraticlocal governance. Decentralization, forexample, can give rise to local politicalmovements or parties that force thetraditional political system to open upand become more pluralistic. Success atthe local level can, in some situations,generate public pressure on the nationalgovernment to accord greater localautonomy. This local-national link mustbe considered because it can be criticalto programming, especially whenUSAID is working where localgovernment officials are not elected.

This handbook illustrates the programmingadvances that have been made during USAID�slong experience with decentralization anddemocratic local governance programming. Asthis section demonstrates, however, maximizingthe impact of program activities on thedevelopment of democracy and improvedgovernance demands greater understanding in avariety of areas. In the coming months andyears, in its effort to provide technical leadershipfor the Agency, the Center will be taking onmany of these and other questions as theyemerge. Ultimately, after all, successfulprogramming is a continual learning process.

REFERENCES

Ayee, Joseph. 1987. �The Adjustment of Central Bodies to Decentralization: The Case of GhanaianBureaucracy.� Africa Studies Review 40(2): 37-58.

Bidus, Mark. 1995 (August). A Review of Decentralization and Municipal Development Initiatives andTheir Effect on Decentralization in Latin America. Washington, DC: USAID/G/ENV/UP.

Bird, Richard M., Robert D. Ebel, and Christine I. Wallich. 1995. Decentralization of the Socialist State:Inter-governmental Finance in Transition Economies. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Bird, Richard, and François Vaillancourt, eds. 1998. Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries.New York. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Blair, Harry. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in Bolivia. CDIE Impact Evaluation. Washington, DC:Center for Development Information and Evaluation, USAID. http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/pnaby/243.pdf.

Blair, Harry. 1998b. Spreading Power to the Periphery: An Assessment of Democratic Local Governance.CDIE Program and Operations Assessment Report No. 21. Washington, DC: Center for DevelopmentInformation and Evaluation.

Bland, Gary. August 1999. Decentralization and Local Electoral Systems: Making Choices forDemocratic Accountability. Article presented on �West Africa Regional Dialogue on Decentralization�Internet site, Research Triangle Institute.

Brinkerhoff, Derick W. 1998. Democratic Governance and Sectoral Policy Reform: Linkages,Complementarities, and Synergies. IPC Monograph No. 5. Washington, DC: USAID.

Burki, S.J., Guillermo Perry, and William Dillinger, eds. 1999. Beyond the Center: Decentralizing theState. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Commission for Local Democracy. 1995. Taking Charge: The Rebirth of Local Democracy. London:Municipal Journal Books.

Cook, Thomas J., Jerry VanSant, Leslie Stewart, and Jamie Adrian. 1993. Performance MeasurementLessons Learned. Center for International Development Staff Working Paper. Research Triangle Park,NC: Research Triangle Institute (RTI).

Haggard, Stephan, and Robert Kaufman. 1995. The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hyman, Gerald F., Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy Development (AdvanceCopy), Technical Publication Series (Washington, DC: USAID/Center for Democracy and Governance,December 1999).

Johnson, Ronald W., and Henry P. Minis, Jr. 1996. Toward Democratic Decentralization: Approaches toPromoting Good Governance. Center for International Development Staff Working Paper. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: RTI.

Jutkowitz, Joel M., Russell Stout, and Hal Lippman. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in thePhilippines: Tradition Hinders Transition. CDIE Impact Evaluation. Arlington, Virginia: USAID. http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/pnaby235.pdf.

Lacey, Linda, Cynthia Woodsong, and Nancy McGirr. 1993. Decentralization of Population Programs inSub-Saharan Africa: Concepts and Issues. Report prepared under the USAID project Resources for theAwareness of Population Impacts on Development (RAPID IV). Washington, DC: The Futures Groupand Research Triangle Institute.

Landau, Martin, Ledevina Carna, Schutra Bhahta, and James Wunsch. 1980. The Provincial DevelopmentAssistance Project. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.

Lijphart, Arend. 1984. �The Federal-Unitary Centralized-Decentralized Contrasts.� In Democracies:Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Linz, Alfred, and Juan Steppan. 1996. Democratic Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Lippman, Hal and Harry Blair. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in Ukraine. CDIE ImpactEvaluation. Arlington, Virginia: USAID. http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/pnaby238.pdf.

Lippman, Hal and Barbara Lewis. 1998. Democratic Decentralization in Mali. CDIE Impact Evaluation.Arlington, Virginia: USAID.

Lippman, Hal and Patrick Pranke. 1998. Democratic Local Governance in Honduras. CDIE ImpactEvaluation. Arlington, Virginia: USAID.

Manor, James. 1997. The Political Economy of Decentralization. August 1 draft. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Miller, Tom. 1997 (April). Fiscal Federalism in Theory and Practice: The Case of the Philippines.Economists Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: Office of Emerging Markets, USAID/G/EG.

National League of Cities (NLC). 1996. Connecting Citizens and Their Government: Civility,Responsibility, and Local Democracy. The 1996 Futures Report. Washington, DC: NLC, AdvisoryCouncil Futures Process.

Osborn, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit isTransforming the Public Service. New York: Penguin.

Ottoemoeller, Dan. 1999. �Decentralization: The Lessons from the Local Councils of Uganda.� In DeleOlowu and James Wunsch (eds.), Consolidating Democracy in Africa: The Challenge of CreatingPolycentric Structures Amidst Scarcity.

Robison, Julie Aberg, and C. Stark Biddle. 1998. Strengthening Local Governance in Uganda: AProgram Design in Support of Democratic Decentralization. Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute.

Rondinelli, Dennis, John Nellis, and G. Shabbir Cheema. 1984. Decentralization in DevelopingCountries: A Review of Recent Experience. Washington DC: World Bank.

Scholte, Jan Aart. 1998 (September). �The IMF Meets Civil Society.� Finance & Development 35(3).International Monetary Fund: http://www.imf.org/external/ pubs/ft/fandd/1998/09/scholte.htm.

Smoke, Paul J., and Blane Lewis. 1990. �Fiscal Decentralization in Indonesia: A New Approach to an OldIdea.� World Development 18(1): 61-73.

USAID. 1997a. Municipal Bond Tax Exemption. Finance Working Papers. Washington, DC: Office ofEnvironment and Urban Programs, Center for Environment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support,and Research. November.

USAID. 1997b. Cost Recovery: Ensuring Sustainability and Equity in the Provision of Urban Services.Finance Working Papers. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and Urban Programs, Center forEnvironment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. September 22-23.

USAID. 1997c. Expanding Municipal Finance in Zimbabwe: Recommendations for Addressing CurrentConstraints. Finance Working Papers. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and Urban Programs,Center for Environment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. September.

USAID. 1998a. Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators. Washington, DC: Centerfor Democracy and Governance, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, USAID.

USAID. 1998b. Making Cities Work: A Proposed Urban Strategy for USAID. Urban Task Force April 6draft. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and Urban Programs, Center for Environment, Bureau forGlobal Programs, Field Support, and Research.

USAID. 1998e. Municipal Bond Market Development in Developing Countries: The Experience of theU.S. Agency for International Development. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and UrbanPrograms, Center for Environment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. April.

USAID. 1999a. A Handbook on Fighting Corruption. Washington, DC: USAID, Center for Democracyand Governance. February.

USAID. 1999b. The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach. Washington, DC: Center forDemocracy and Governance. June.

USAID. 1999c. Handbook on Borrowing for City Development. Washington, DC: USAID/Ukraine.August.

USAID. 2000a. Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral Processes. Washington, DC:Center for Democracy and Governance. January.

USAID. 2000b. USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening. Washington, DC: Center for Democracyand Governance. February.

VanSant, Jerry, Harry Blair, Henedina Razon-Abad, and Todd Amani. 1998. Impact Assessment:Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) Project. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research TriangleInstitute.

Villadsen, Soren, and Francis Lubanga. 1996. Democratic Decentralization in Uganda: A New Approachto Local Governance. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers Ltd.

Cheryl

Willis, Eliza, Christopher da C.B. Garman, and Stephan Haggard. 1999. The Politics of Decentralizationin Latin America. Latin American Research Review 34, No. 1.

World Bank. 2000. Entering the 21st Century: World Development Report 1999/2000. Washington, DC:Oxford University Press.

Wunsch, James. May 1998. �Decentralization, Local Governance, and the Democratic Transition inSouthern Africa: A Comparative Analysis.� African Studies Quarterly 2(1). http://web. africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i1a2.htm or http://www.clas.ufl.edu/africa/asq.

Wunsch, James. 1999. �Toward a Political Economy of Local Governance in Africa: Institutions,Policies, Interests, and Consequences.� Paper presented at the Jubilee Conference of PublicAdministration and Development, April 12, 1999. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

WEB SITES

� USAID�s Center for Democracy and Governance internal web site: inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

� USAID�s external democracy and governance web site: www.usaid.gov/democracy/

� USAID�s Office of Environment and Urban Programs in the Environment Center (intranet and internet):www.genv.org/mcw and www.makingcitieswork.org

� USAID�s Africa Regional Dialogue on Decentralization: www.usaid.gov/leland

� USAID�s Local Government Center for Europe and Eurasia: www.usaid.gov/regions/ee/local_gov/

� USAID�s Local Government Information Network in the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia:www.logincee.org

� USAID-funded GOLD project in the Philippines: www.ardgold.org/

� USAID�s Decentralization Network on Water and Wastewater in Central American and the Caribbean:www.ehproject.org

� USAID�s Democracy Strategy paper: www.usaid.gov/democracy/strategy.htm

� Center for Development Information and Evaluation (CDIE) page: www.dec.org/usaid_eval/

� International Forum for Cooperation on Local Government in Latin America and the Caribbean, sup-ported by USAID/LAC: www.latinterforum.org

� World Bank site on decentralization: www.worldbank/org/html/fpd/urban/

� World Bank site on social capital: www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital

� World Bank site on decentralization: www.worldbank.org/decentralization

� UN Development Programme site on decentralized governance: www.undp.org/governance

http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy

http://www.genv.org/mcw

http://www.makingcitieswork.org

http://www.usaid.gov/leland

http://www.usaid.gov/regions/ee/local_gov/

http://www.usaid.gov/regions/ee/local_gov/

http://www.logincee.org

http://www.ehproject.org

http://www.dec.org/usaid_evav/

http://www.latinterforum.org

http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/urban/

http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/

http://www.worldbank.org/decentralization/

http://www.undp.org/governance

OTHER TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS FROMTHE OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE

PN-ACB-895Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners Guide

PN-ACM-001Case Tracking and Management Guide

PN-ACC-887Civil-military Relations: USAID�s Role

PN-ACH-305Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy Development

PN-ACH-300Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

PN-ACD-395Democracy and Governance: A Conceptual Framework

PN-ACC-390Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators

PN-ACE-070A Handbook on Fighting Corruption

PN-ACF-631Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral Processes

PN-ACE-630The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach

PN-ACF-632USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening

PN-ACE-500USAID Political Party Development Assistance

TO ORDER FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

· Please reference the document title and document identification number (listed above the document titles on thispage and on the cover of this publication).

· USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may order docu-ments at no charge.

· Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries may orderup to five titles at no charge.

· All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable, reproduc-tion and postage costs will be billed.

Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)E-mail orders to [email protected]

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacb895.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacm001.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacc887.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnach305.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnach300.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacd395.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacc390.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnace070.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacf631.pdf


http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/pdfs/pnacf632.pdf


mailto:[email protected]

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

Cheryl

PN-ACH-300

Center for Democracy and GovernanceBureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research

U.S. Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20523-3100

Tel: (202) 712-1892Fax: (202) 216-3232

Internet: http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/Intranet: http:/inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/

Cheryl

Cheryl

http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/

http://inside.usaid.gov/G/DG

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook 2000

Documents

usaid contractors

usaid officers

usaid employees

usaid personnel

democracy promotion

relevant publications

areas of decentralization

fax orders