Initially they were three - Finance Follows Functions; then they were expanded to four - Finance and Functionaries Follow Functions. This aphorism is intended to guide designers and policy makers in structuring decentralization programs and as an aphorism it is elegant, easy to remember, appropriate and useful. However, in practice, how often is it followed, and more to the point, what are the barriers to following it and how may these barriers be overcome? Practicioners have learned from experience that the prime motivator for decentralization programs is neither economics nor a search for good governance but political imperatives. In this context, how does an advisor make the case for designs that come as close as possible to meeting the requirements implied by the 4Fs? It would be very interesting, and perhaps more professionally important, if we practitioners exchange ideas on the approaches we have taken to bring our clients closer to this ideal. This is my opening 2011 suggestion for a discussion topics agenda for this year. I also would welcome other suggestions of topics for discussion based on practical issues we find in the field. We will organize our fora around your proposals.
To get this first one started, here are some of the approaches that I am aware of that have been helpful, although I make make no claims of universal acceptance and success. My favorite is: a series of public seminars/discussions prior to the formulation of policies, laws and constitutional changes. To obtain the maximum benefit from these public seminars, they must be carefully designed. They should not be occasions of preaching by experts to the audience (who will necessarily include political representatives and public servants who have a stake in the status quo) but laying out the thinking and, at least equally important, the experience that is behind these principles, and organizing mixed discussion groups that are guided by well briefed and respected non-political leadership to determine what would be the constraints, and solutions for the manifestations of resistance to designing appropriate relationships in that country's context. The objective behind this approach is build an ongoing constituency to guide both the design and implementation of the necessary reforms. The reports of these discussions would ideally be widely circulated and discussed in the press. (If the pre-conditions for this type of seminar and public discussion do not exist, then the chances of the necessary reforms and application of the design principles are likely to be slim to none). As an incentive to good performance, local governments could be classified according to the quality of their implementation and rewarded with more autonomy and resources as assessed at review intervals of perhaps 3 - 5 years.
At the other end of the spectrum is enlightened (and sometimes not necessarily democratic) leadership that sees the alternative to successful decentralization as potential fragmentation; this is not frequent, but it has happened. The case to be made in this context is that by focusing responsibility and authority appropriately and allocating resources transparently, this frees the central leadership to be the source of appeal and protection against local tyranny. Since major resources and powers would still reside in the center, this can be seen as an effective strategy to keep local opponents busy managing time and energy consuming day-to-day problems with just enough resources and authority (to raise revenues, for example) to ensure that constituents focus on the performance of their local leaders.
Any other experiences and/or suggestions?
