ANNEXES
a. Dangers of the ‘devolution vs deconcentration’ dichotomy It is common for literature on the subject to characterize a sub-national framework as being either ‘devolved’ or ‘deconcentrated’.6 A summary of the typical features of the two contrasting stereotypes of ‘local state institution’ is presented in Box A1. While these polar opposites may be very useful stereotypes for measuring the static set-up at any particular sub-national tier, they do not provide an adequate basis for understanding the overall configuration of sub-national administration in most countries. Since the sub-national framework of a large number of countries incorporates a mix of both stereotypes, use of this supposed dichotomy is actually potentially misleading in two important ways: i.
It neglects the all-important issue of relations between sub-national levels;
ii.
It tends implicitly to suggest that it is desirable for elected local government to be established at each and every level, otherwise the set-up appears ‘inadequately’ decentralized. However, this may not always be warranted, given the costs entailed and the dysfunctional political tensions that may emerge between sub-national levels and with the centre.
b. A more comprehensive assessment One of the first tasks of assessment is to map out the local institutional topography as defined by the Constitution, legal statutes, administrative decree, or simply by practice, to determine the extent to which institutions at each level reflect this ideal type. Issues to be explored include: i.
the formally defined levels of government and administration, from region/ province through district/prefecture, county/arrondissement and commune/ ward to village;
ii.
the existence of centrally appointed general administrators (governors, prefects, district commissioners, etc.) at these levels;
iii. the existence of elected (or part elected/part appointed) policy-making or consultative assemblies (councils, assemblies, development committees, etc.), their legal/constitutional status and areas of jurisdiction, and their relationship with centrally appointed administrators (supervisory or consultative?) ; iv.
the deployment and employment of executive or line department staff, their geographical area of operations, and their relationships (control, joint supervision, or simply coordination ?) with general administrators, representative assemblies and their own parent ministries;
v.
central ministries responsible for local administration and government, and the nature of central-local relations (tutelle and supervision, inspection and audit, or monitoring and mentoring).
223