CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE

...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world.

DECENTRALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC LOCAL

GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING HANDBOOK

May 2000

Technical Publication Series

Center for Democracy and Governance
Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research
U.S. Agency for International Development
Washington, DC 20523-3100

TO ORDER THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE:

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

USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may
order documents at no charge.

Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries
may 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 SERIES

The USAID Center for Democracy and Governance Technical Publication Series was launched in March
1998. The series includes publications intended principally for USAID personnel; however, all persons
interested in the sector may benefit from the series. Authors of individual publications may be USAID
officials and/or other individuals from the public and private sector. The Center for Democracy and Governance
reserves the right to review and edit all publications for content and format and all are subject to a broad
USAID review process. The series is intended in part to indicate best practices, lessons learned, and guidelines
for practitioner consideration. The series also includes publications that are intended to stimulate debate and
discussion.

A list of other relevant publications and ordering information are included at the back of this document.
ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
This handbook serves as a practical guide to USAID officers who are faced with the task of developing
program activities in the areas of decentralization and democratic local governance. Drawing on 15 years of
USAID experience in democracy promotion and on four decades of municipal development work, this
publication 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 and
evaluation; and a discussion of key lessons learned and future programming issues.

Comments regarding this publication and inquiries regarding decentralization and democratic local
governance should be directed to
Neil Levine, Team Leader
Governance Team
Tel: (202) 712-0121
Fax: (202) 216-3232
[email protected]

Gary Bland
Governance Team
Tel: (202) 712-1523
Fax: (202) 216-3232
[email protected]

Center for Democracy and Governance

Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research
U.S. Agency for International Development
Washington, DC 20523-3100
More information, including electronic versions of the Centers Technical Publication Series, is available
from the Centers Intranet site at http://www.usaid.gov/G/DG/ and USAIDs democracy Internet site at
http://www.info.usaid.gov/democracy/
ABOUT THE CENTER
The Center for Democracy and Governance is the U.S. Agency for International Developments focal point
for democracy and governance programming. The Centers role is to provide USAID and other development
practitioners with the technical and intellectual expertise needed to support democratic development. It
provides this expertise in the following areas:

C
C
C
C

Rule of Law
Elections and Political Processes
Civil Society
Governance

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
USAIDs Center for Democracy and Governance would like to acknowledge the work that its staff and
the contractor, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), devoted to the completion of this handbook. As this
publication was developed, through the various stages and drafts, many of the Centers staff and the staff
at RTI contributed their time, energy, and expertise to ensure that readers would have the best possible
product. RTI staff to whom we would like to extend a particular note of appreciation are listed, along with
short biographies, in the paragraphs below. We also received the valuable input and assistance of staff in
other bureaus of the Agency, particularly the Office of Environment and Urban Programs in the Global
Environment Center.
This handbook owes much to the outstanding work of Gary Bland. Gary, a Democracy Fellow who serves
as advisor on decentralization and democratic local governance for the Center, developed the handbooks
conceptual and strategic approach and provided its clear, reader-friendly style. He holds a Ph.D. from the
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Prior to joining the Center, Gary
was senior program associate at the Latin American program of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, where his research and writing focused on democratic development and
decentralization in Latin America.
Also deserving of special mention are Harry Blair and Pat Isman-FnPiere, who were involved with the
handbook from its inception; Jennifer Windsor, Jim Vermillion, and Diana Swain who made substantive
contributions during the final stages of the handbooks completion; and our editor, Karen Farrell.
The Center would like to acknowledge those individuals in USAIDs Missions overseas and other donor
organizations, as well as those among our implementing partners and host-country counterparts, with
whom we have had the privilege of working on this handbook and from whom we have learned so much.
C. Stark Biddle
C. 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 public
and private sector in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe. Stark focuses on
democracy and governance issues, strategic planning, budgeting, evaluation, and finance.
Rebecca Gadell
Rebecca Gadell, a senior local government communications specialist at RTI, has worked in public and
private sector communication, marketing, public relations, and technology for over 25 years. She worked
with communications and community involvement in several Texas municipalities to promote, from
within city hall, improved city services and citizen involvement. Since 1996, Becky, who is presidentelect 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 and
resident advisor for communication and citizen participation.
Hal Minis
Hal Minis, a senior development planner at RTI, has worked on decentralization policy and local
government issues in the United States and abroad for the past 25 years. He served as resident director of
the West Africa Municipal Management Training program from 1986 to 1988. Hal developed the
governance strategy for USAID/Tunisia and subsequently was involved in the Local Government Support
project to implement that strategy. He recently developed the West Africa Decentralization Dialogue, an
Internet-based discussion among several West African countries and is assisting the USAIDs Local
Government Initiative in Bulgaria.

Julie Aberg Robison

Julie Aberg Robison is a public administration specialist with over 10 years experience in the design and
implementation of programs that strengthen national decentralization policy. As resident advisor for the
Cte dIvoire 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 promote
democratic local decision-making. Julie recently completed a study on decentralization and local revenue
generation in the Sahel, contributes to the Implementing Policy Change-Decentralization project in
Uganda, and is technical manager for the Local Government Finance Reform project in South Africa.
Al Sharp
Al Sharp is a senior public management specialist in RTIs Center for International Development. He has
more than 20 years of public management experience strengthening the performance of local
governments, implementing enhanced inter-government relations, improving public financial practices,
and increasing the level and effectiveness of citizen participation. Al headed the USAID-funded
Municipal Finance and Management project in Moscow at its inception and, subsequently, was chief-ofparty for the all-Russia program. His country experience also includes Bulgaria, Croatia, Paraguay,
Romania, Ukraine, and Uruguay.
Jerry VanSant
Jerry VanSant is an MBA-trained management and organization specialist with 30 years experience as a
line 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, management
and organizational performance, and development sustainability. In recent years, Jerry has focused on
leadership and organizational renewal for agencies in the public sector and groups in civil society. From
1990 to1998, he directed RTIs Center for International Development. Currently, Jerry is a visiting
professor at the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University.
James Wunsch
James Wunsch is chair of the Department of Political Science and International Studies at Creighton University
and 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. He
specializes in democracy and governance, local government, decentralization, inter-governmental relations,
and civil society. James has substantive experience in project evaluation, policy analysis, training, and project
development and design.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
Founded in 1958, Research Triangle Institute is an independent, nonprofit organization that serves clients
in government, industry, academia, and public service throughout the United States and abroad. The
institute conducts research and development and provides technical services in five major areas: advanced
technologies, environment, health and pharmaceuticals, public policy, and survey and statistics.

DECENTRALIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC LOCAL

GOVERNANCE PROGRAMMING HANDBOOK
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I.

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5
A.
B.
C.
D.

II.

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

A.
B.

III.

Options for Strategic Focus .............................................................................................. 29

Programming Considerations ........................................................................................... 32

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

A.
B.

VI.

Fundamental Concepts ..................................................................................................... 16

An Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................... 21
Programming Implications ............................................................................................... 22
Other Considerations ........................................................................................................ 27

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

A.
B.

V.

Effective Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance ....................................... 11

Building Successful Programs .......................................................................................... 13

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

A.
B.
C.
D.

IV.

Current Trends .................................................................................................................... 5

Definitions and Key Clarifications ..................................................................................... 6
Participatory Program Approach ........................................................................................ 8
Handbook Organization ..................................................................................................... 8

Identifying the Entry Point ............................................................................................... 35

Selecting Program Tactics ................................................................................................ 43

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

A.
B.
C.
D.

Performance Monitoring .................................................................................................. 51

Performance Evaluation ................................................................................................... 51
Performance Indicators .................................................................................................... 53
Setting Targets and Measuring Results ............................................................................ 54

VII.

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

VIII.

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

REFERENCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This handbook serves as a practical guide to USAID officers who are faced with the task of developing
program activities in the areas of decentralization and democratic local governance. At a time when
decentralization and democratic local governance have become global interests of public policy and
program priorities of USAID and many other donors, this publicationdrawing on 15 years of USAID
experience in democracy promotion and on four decades of municipal development workprovides

A conceptual framework designed to support assessment of a missions prospects for programming in

decentralization 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 local
governance activities

Discussion of key lessons learned and future programming issues in decentralization and the
strengthening of democratic local governance

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

This publication aims to help DG officers decide if, when, and how to initiate or enhance programs in
decentralization and democratic local governance. It is intended as a subsector-specific follow-up to the
Center for Democracy and Governances Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy
Development (Advance Copy) [December 1999]. The Center also hopes that it will enhance awareness
and engender productive debate about the dynamics of decentralization and democratic local governance
in 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 of
additional resources to assist USAID officers. It is the Centers 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 to
design and implement an effective performance monitoring system for decentralization and democratic
local governance programming.
Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance
The handbook is a testament to the Centers recognition of decentralization and the development of
democratic local governance as fundamentally political processes. Absent a clear understanding of the
host countrys national and local politics and of the import of USAID activities within that political
context, decentralization and democratic local governance programming will undoubtedly be less
successful. Thus, the handbook begins by developing the conceptual framework.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Decentralization and democratic local governance are defined by the Center as follows:
Decentralization is a process of transferring power to popularly elected local governments. Transferring
power means providing local governments with greater political authority (e.g., convene local elections or
establish participatory processes), increased financial resources (e.g., through transfers or greater tax
authority), and/or more administrative responsibilities.
Democratic local governance is the process of governing democratically at the local level, viewed
broadly to include not only the machinery of government, but also the community at-large and its
interaction 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, local
governmentsand the communities they governgain the authority, resources, and skills to make
responsive choices and to act on them effectively and accountably. Advancing the capacity of local
governments to act effectively and accountably requires promoting the desire and capacity of civil
society organizations and individual citizens to take responsibility for their communities, participate in
local priority-setting, assist in the implementation of those decisions, and then monitor their effectiveness.
A Three-phase Program Planning Process
In an effort to be as clear as possible, this handbook applies a three-phase approach for decentralization
and democratic local governance planning. It recommends that DG officers, first, assess the environment
for 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 will
need to select programming tactics.
STEP ONE: Assessing the Environment
The question of the environment, or country context, is a prime consideration in determining whether to
begin or extend decentralization or democratic local governance programming. The handbook takes DG
officers through an assessment methodology based on two key criteria: the extent of political will to
decentralize 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 countryparticularly, but not exclusively, national
government leadersdemonstrates to decentralization and the development of democratic local
governance.
Local governance tradition is the developing countrys degree of decentralization and the effectiveness
and 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 of
political will and the strength of the countrys tradition of local governance. As the handbook
subsequently points out, each countrys combination of political will and local governance tradition
carries general programming implications. In a country with strong political will to change and a weak
local governance tradition, for example, the programming environment can be considered excellent
because the desire to reform is coupled with a system in which there are many areas that need work. The
assessment process gives officers a clearer idea of the prospects for the success of program activities in
this area and of the level at which the mission should intervene. Conducting the assessment provides,

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

moreover, a wealth of information and insight for the subsequent strategic and tactical stages of
programming. The handbook also provides a number of country examples of USAID experiences where
combinations of political will and local governance tradition vary widely.
STEP TWO: Defining Programming Strategy
To define a strategy, once it is determined that a decentralization and democratic local governance
program has merit for a country, DG officers will need to address the central question: Given limited
resources, in how many of three focus areas should USAID strategically intervene to maximize its impact
on the development of a democratic local system of government? Strategy options are organized
according to the areas of strategic focus:
1) Creating a favorable enabling environment: The objective is to encourage the national government to
enact and implement an effective decentralization initiative, including regularly convening free and fair
local elections. These activities are focused primarily at the national level of government, although they
also 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 community
efforts to create local government that operates in a more responsive, accountable, participatory, and
increasingly effectiveor more democraticmanner. These activities are primarily focused on the local
level.
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 activities
are primarily focused on the local level.
In this section, the handbook presents a variety of programming options and the strategic considerations
associated with each. DG officers are asked to consider, for example, the level(s) of government at which
programming is most likely to succeed (depending on available resources), prospects for success, and
other factors. Officers are also called on to consider their ability to capitalize on openings within the
national government, the particular value of democratic local governance activities, and activities with an
inter-governmental impact, such as support for local government associations. A series of questions aimed
at stimulating strategic discussion for each of the three focus areas is also provided.
STEP THREE: Selecting Entry Points and Tactics
Next, the DG officer must select the tacticsor toolsthat match USAIDs comparative advantages with
a countrys best prospects for change. In this stage, DG officers will choose from among many possible
options to ensure impact and sustain program efforts.
The program officer is asked to consider the program entry point(s), which is the initial programming
opportunitythe strategic doorwaythat will allow the mission to anchor its program and optimize
overall impact. Ideally, the entry point offers a tangible focus for both local attention and donor
assistance. In the Philippines, for example, where reform of the local government law was under
consideration, 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 officer
may wish to choose. The list of tools is organized according to the three strategic focus areas and
discussion centers on the objectives and potential drawbacks associated with each tactic.
Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, Lessons Learned, and Key Issues in Programming
A number of issues, if adequately addressed, can greatly improve programming in decentralization and
democratic local governance. Performance monitoring and evaluation, of course, help the DG officer
determine whether programming is achieving the desired results. This handbook provides considerable
detail on how to monitor and evaluate decentralization and democratic local governance programming in
particular. It provides dos and donts, information on how to use performance information, and sample
indicators and target scales in each of the three strategic focus areas.
Major lessons learned from USAIDs years of experience in decentralization and democratic local
governance programming are detailed. These lessons are coupled with several examples of mission
programming 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 issues
for the future. These issues address a variety of critical concerns, from decentralizations potential
disadvantages to program design, that are likely to arise in any country. How to resolve these concerns is
certainly not clear. By raising these issues, the handbook gives USAID officers a broader understanding
and a more forward-looking perspective on decentralization and democratic local governance
programming. The Center also seeks to engage the field in a dialogue to gain a better understanding of its
experiences in these areas.
Although this handbook is specifically directed toward DG officers, the Center seeks to advocate a
participatory program planning approach throughout so as to engage a wide variety of mission and hostcountry stakeholders. Finally, and most important, this handbook represents an effort to help USAID
officers 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 these
pages apply to every country in which USAID has a mission: Developing a handbook to cover the great
diversity of country situations inevitably leads to a level of generalization. We do hope, however, that this
product proves valuable to program officers in USAID Missions across the globe.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

I.

INTRODUCTION

A.

Current Trends

Decentralization and the development of

democratic local governance continue quietly to
sweep the world. From Bolivia to Bulgaria, and
from West Africa to South Asia, a wide variety
of countries are increasing the authority of local
governments and working to make them more
responsive and effective.
The prime motivations behind these reforms
vary. Some countries are emerging from
dictatorships seeking to disperse power among
smaller governmental units. Others are reducing
the size of the central government as part of a
transition to a more efficient market economy.
Many others seek to increase public involvement
and accountability in government decisionmaking. Where one country is responding to
donor pressures for popular reform, another is
hoping that the poor performance of the national
government can be overcome by allowing local
governments to provide fundamentally local
public services.
Even where democratic development is not a
central consideration, in those countries where
genuine reform has occurred, there are openings
for continued democratic change.
According to Western liberal tradition,
decentralization promotes democracy in myriad
ways. By bringing government closer to citizens,
decentralization allows people to participate
more effectively in local affairs, including
identification of community priorities. Local
leaders can be held increasingly accountable for
decisions that affect citizens lives. Citizens and
their elected leaders gain experience in the
practice of democracy.
Decentralization signifies the dispersion of
central government power, increased

opportunities for responsive leaders or

previously marginalized groups to enter politics,
and increased attention to local concerns. With
decentralization, local decisions can be tailored
to local needs, allowing scarce resources to be
generated and expended with greater efficiency
and public services to be provided more
effectively. Taken together, as local government
performance improves, these changes can
enhance the legitimacy of the democratic
system.
Decentralization is by no means always a
positive experience. The process carries a
number of potential disadvantages as well. It can
produce territorial inequality as wealthy
localities take advantage of their new autonomy
to push further ahead of low-income areas.
Increased local authority may in some
communities allow elites to dominate local
politics. Decentralization can threaten territorial
integrity if it gives rise to separatist demands
and, especially when financial oversight of local
officials is weak, it can lead to increased
corruption. Local service delivery may
deteriorate where financial and administrative
capacity is weak. Further discussion of potential
disadvantages can be found in Section VIII on
programming issues.
Reflecting the extraordinary trend toward
decentralization, USAID is working to varying
degrees in some 50 countries to promote
decentralization and to help communities take
advantage of opportunities to improve
democratic local governance.
In decades past, the Agency focused on
improving local public administration,
strengthening local credit or financial systems,
and supporting urban development. These issues
continue to receive close attention, but the
Agencys approach has broadened. USAID
today strongly emphasizes the pro-democratic
and political aspects of decentralization and
local governance programming. The Center for

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Democracy and Governance in particular is

explicitly concerned with decentralization as a
political process and with its impact on a
nations democratic development.
As countries decentralize and call on their local
governments to respond to their communities
and to more effectively deliver services, USAID
asks: How can we improve the democratic
system through our support for decentralization
reforms?
This handbook is a practical guide for
democracy and governance (DG) officers who
must decide if, when, and how to program for
decentralization and democratic local
governance. In publishing this handbook, the
Center provides DG officers and their
implementing partners with the following:

A fundamental conceptual framework for

understanding decentralization and
democratic local governance concepts

A means of generally assessing a countrys

prospects for decentralization and improved
democratic local governance

A variety of programming strategies, tactics,

evaluation techniques, and lessons gathered
from worldwide experience

The Center hopes this handbook will help

USAID programming produce desired,
sustainable results.
B. Definitions and Key Clarifications
1. Definitions
Understanding what decentralization and
democratic local governance are is essential to
effective DG programming in these areas. For
the purposes of this handbook, the two, distinct
terms are defined as follows:

a. Decentralization
Decentralization is a process of transferring
power to popularly elected local governments. It
brings about change in the operation of
institutions and almost invariably occurs
gradually. Decentralization requires the
existence of elected local governments because
local officials do not have meaningful autonomy
unless they answer to their constituents.
Appointed local officials must ultimately act
according to the interests of those in the national
capital who gave them their jobs; they are
effectively agents of the national government. A
local system in which government officials are
appointed, then, is a centralized system that has
not begun to decentralize.
It should be noted there are a variety of
definitions of decentralization. One often-used
definitional framework is drawn from the
economic development or public
administrationas opposed to democracy
literature. This approach recognizes three types
of decentralization: devolution, deconcentration,
and delegation. In the past, USAID relied
heavily on this formulation.
Devolution is closest to the term we consider, in
this handbook, decentralization. Formally,
devolution is the creation or increased reliance
upon subnational levels of government, with
some degree of political autonomy, that are
substantially outside direct central government
control yet subject to general policies and laws,
such as those regarding civil rights and rule of
law.
Deconcentration is the transfer of power to an
administrative unit of the central government,
usually a field or regional office. With
deconcentration, local officials are not elected.
Delegation is the transfer of managerial
responsibility for a specifically defined function
outside the usual central government structure.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

b. Local governance
Local governance is governing at the local level
viewed broadly to include not only the
machinery of government, but also the
community at-large and its interaction with
local authorities.
c. Democratic local governance
Democratic local governance is, in turn, local
governance carried out in a responsive,
participatory, accountable, and increasingly
effective (i.e., democratic) fashion.
Decentralization gives the local governance
system the opportunity to become increasingly
democratic. It helps position local officials to
work for the benefit of the community at-large.
Without decentralization, the development of
democratic local governance is much more
difficult.
As decentralization opens avenues for the
development of democratic local governance,
local governments gain the authority, resources,
and skills; make responsive choices with citizen
input; and operate effectively and accountably.
2. Clarifications
The above short definitional framework is
perhaps clear enough, but a deeper
understanding of these concepts requires further
elaboration. The following clarifications of
decentralization and democratic local
governance are provided with the hope that they
not only complement the points made above,
but also highlight the close link between the two
concepts.
a. Decentralization is about power and is,
therefore, a fundamentally political process.
Specifically, decentralization is about handing
power over to the local level, typically from the

central government. And neither individuals nor

institutions relinquish power easily. Largely for
this reason, then, decentralization is a long,
usually difficult, process that requires
extraordinary incentive to enact and implement.
It is invariably subject to fits and starts as
proponents and opponents maneuver for
advantage in what is frequently a major national
debate.
b. Decentralization has three dimensions:
political, financial, and administrative.
These three dimensions, in essence, represent
the primary components of power. The political
dimension (often referred to as political
decentralization) involves the transfer of
political authority to the local level through the
establishment or reestablishment of elected local
government (perhaps as part of a democratic
transition), electoral reform, political party
reform, authorization of participatory processes,
and other reforms.
The financial dimension (often referred to as
financial or fiscal decentralization) refers to
the shifting of financial power to the local level.
It involves increasing or reducing conditions on
the inter-governmental transfer of resources and
giving jurisdictions greater authority to generate
their own revenue.
The administrative dimension (often referred to
as administrative decentralization) involves
the full or partial transfer of an array of
functional responsibilities to the local level, such
as health care service, the operation of schools,
the management of service personnel, the
building and maintenance of roads, and garbage
collection.
Progress along any of these dimensions is
decentralization. Decentralization tends to be
strongest, however, when real political
autonomy, sufficient administrative
responsibility, and the financial resources to

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

carry out primary functions appear at or are

transferred to the local level together.

f.

Decentralization is as if local officials are being

told by the central government: Here are the
areas in which you must now work, and here is
how you will get the resources needed to
actually do the work. And from now on you are
responsible to your community for the results
you produce. Under these conditions,
democratic local governance has the best chance
to emerge.

Each country develops its own local democratic

system. The political processes used vary greatly
according to custom (i.e., a public meeting in
Poland is not the same as a public meeting in
Bolivia), but the broader goallocal
democracyremains the same.

c. Decentralization is about potential; it

guarantees nothing.
Whether or not decentralization actually
promotes democratic local governance in a
particular country context is an open question.
On the other hand, the impact of decentralization
reforms can be positive for democracy
regardless of how the reforms come into being.
d. The context for decentralization varies with
every country.
As is the case with many DG issues, situations
vary greatly even between neighboring countries
with similar politics and cultures. Although there
are general similarities, every country in the
world faces a unique combination of issues.
What works in one country may not work or be
politically feasible in any other.
e. In this handbook, local refers to all levels
of subnational government in a country.
Although most countries contain multiple levels
of governmentfrom regions and provinces to
states, cantons, and other variationsfor the
sake of clarity, this handbook includes them all
under a single term, local.

How democratic local governance actually

operates reflects the countrys own political
history and culture.

g. Effective decentralization is a key tool for

strengthening democracy.
Strengthening democracy at the local level can
help strengthen democracy in the nation as a
whole. It can help define the role of government
and clarify the relationship between government
and citizens.
C.

Participatory Program Approach

Although this handbook is specifically directed

toward DG officers, it encourages participatory
approaches that engage all areas of mission
activity and host-country stakeholders. The
selected case studies aim to provide participatory
program models from varied contexts.
D.

Handbook Organization

This handbook contains eight sections, the first

of which is this introduction to decentralization
and democratic local governance. Section II is
an effort to describe USAIDs ultimate
programming objective: the ideal decentralized
system of democratic local governance. This
section helps one consider, in general terms,
what success really means. It then moves to
providing the three central questions that USAID
DG officers need to answer in building a
successful decentralization and democratic local
governance program. These address issues of
assessment, strategy, and tactics.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

The subsequent three sections demonstrate how

the answers to the questions posed above
become the basis for the three stages of
decentralization and democratic local
governance programming: assessment, strategy,
and tactics. Section III provides a model for
conducting a general assessment of the prospects
for decentralization programming. Section IV
provides several of the key strategic
considerations. Section V provides a wide range
of programming tools from which officers can
choose when developing their activities.
The final three sections discuss, respectively,
monitoring and evaluation of programming in
decentralization and democratic local
governance; some of the key lessons of USAID
experience; and several of the programming
issues that have emerged and bear consideration
for the future. Effective monitoring and
evaluation and learning from the experience will
improve programming results. Discussing
programming issues will broaden our
understanding in this area and guide our agenda
for future technical leadership.
The handbook concludes with a list of
bibliographic and web site references. These will
provide the reader with additional academic,
programming, policy-related, and electronic
resources in this subject area.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

II.

SUCCESSFUL
PROGRAMMING

In order to design and implement successful

programs for decentralization and democratic
local governance, it is important to understand
what goals are being aimed for, and to work
strategically to meet them. This section first
presents the chief characteristics of successful
decentralization and democratic local
governance in an ideal scenario. It then
introduces a three-phase programming process
that USAID DG officers can rely on to achieve
effective decentralization and democratic local
governance. Each phase of the process is more
explicitly discussed in subsequent sections.
A. Effective Decentralization and
Democratic Local Governance
To be successful at promoting the development
of democratic local governance, we must first
think hard about what effective decentralization
and good local governance might look like.
What characteristics do we want to see in a
developing system? What is the ideal?
Of course, major changes do not occur
overnight, and each country context is somewhat
distinct. Moreover, generalizing across all the
countries of the world and across their varied
political histories and cultures is by no means an
exact process. The following should not,
therefore, be viewed as a single goal for all
countries to reach. Indeed, each country will
move forward on its own terms. Nonetheless,
with the aim clarifying our basic programming
objectives, we present the main characteristics of
effective decentralization, democratic local
governance, and effective local government
capacity.

1. Effective Decentralization
In an ideal scenario, the national government
has shifted a significant measure of new
authority to the local level. The government has
clearly demonstrated the political will to
decentralize. Reforms to the constitution or legal
code have been enacted. These reforms,
moreover, are being implemented in accordance
with the law or at least in a gradual but steady
fashion in response to the new legal mandates or
regulations.
In the ideal political realm, as required by law,
the chief executive (i.e., the mayor) and local
council are regularly elected by the local
populace. The country may be electing local
officials for the first time and, if so, the elections
are run as openly and fairly as possible. The
political party system allows the participation of
local citizen groups and independents and,
therefore, the development of pluralistic
representation. Local officials are, moreover,
accorded authority to pass laws or other legal
norms on local affairs. New community
leadership is able to emerge. Local governments
have the authority to design and use
participatory mechanisms to receive community
input. Citizen access to governmental authorities
and decision-making processes is legally
protected through, for example, access to public
documents.
In the administrative area, under the ideal
scenario the central government is granting local
government clearly defined responsibilities that
significantly concern communities and generate
public interest in local affairs. Local
governments are being accorded functions of
fundamentally local scope. Local governments
are doing more than merely cleaning streets;
they are taking on a variety of non-traditional
service responsibilities, such as assuring primary
health care, basic education, public security,
public utilities, environmental protection, and
building regulation.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

11

In the financial realm, the central government is

taking action to ensure that the local system has
access to the resources to match its new
functions. This is occurring through increased
(or less conditioned) inter-governmental
transfers and/or according local governments
new local revenue-raising authority. Central
government officials also demonstrate increased
concern for the development of locally
generated revenue, for preventing inefficient or
corrupt use of new local resources, and for
finding alternative means, such as credit
markets, for local governments to secure
financing.
2. Democratic Local Governance
Where local governance is democratizing, local
governments are increasingly responsive to and
interactive with the community. They are more
participatory, transparent, and accountable to
local residents. Services are increasingly
provided in response to citizen demand and
priorities.
Regular local electionsor electoral
accountabilityare at the heart of this process.
Participatory governance, which may rely on
mechanisms such as town and interest group
meetings, hearings, and community involvement
in budgeting and planning, is becoming
customary. The local public, including the news
media, has ready access to documents. Citizens
are generally informed and provide input into
key local decisions directly at public meetings,
perhaps through surveys, occasional referenda,
or other means. Civil society groups, reflecting
the composition of the community, interact
regularly with local authorities. Residents tend
to participate voluntarily in neighborhood
improvements. In short, citizens generally
participate in decisions that affect their quality
of life.
Ultimately, local leaders recognize they may
jeopardize their political careers if they dismiss
12

the community consensus. Ideally, a collective

civic consciousness develops and the progress of
the community as a wholeas opposed to local
elites, business interests, or political cronies
becomes paramount.
3. Effective Local Government Capacity
Effective local governments have the technical
know-how, capacity, and financial resources to
sustain the delivery of local public services at
levels satisfactory to citizens. They learn from
experience and they are able to get things done.
Although progress on capacity can be measured
along many fronts, two key points should be
kept in mind:

To a large extent, communities will

measure the success of local democracy
by the local governments ability to
improve the quality of their lives; that is,
by its ability to address perceived social
needs and provide or improve basic
public services.

Local governments ability to perform is

tightly restricted when financial
resources are insufficient to meet their
primary functions and when significant
revenue is lost to waste and corruption.

Ideally, therefore, the development of local

capacity would be producing better-trained
personnel, including more professionals engaged
in local government operations. In an effective
local government, staff members are no longer
predominantly unqualified appointees named to
appease party loyalists but, rather, increasingly
well-educated public servants committed to the
progress of their community. With staff careers
becoming stable, the local government is able to
engage in more long-term strategic planning,
management, and policymaking.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

In the ideal scenario, the local financial position

is strengthening with increasing capacity. Local
governments regularly receive appropriate intergovernmental fiscal transfers to support work in
which the national government has an interest,
yet is also increasingly collecting revenue
locally to support purely local functions. Local
revenue generation has significantly increased
the communitys interest in and oversight of
how its funds are spent. As accountability
increases, resource-strapped jurisdictions
continually work to use their resources more
efficiently, gain access to credit mechanisms,
and develop alternative funding sources.
As local capacity strengthens, local officials are
assuring improved delivery of public services,
especially in critical areas such as health care
and education. They may employ new or
innovative approaches, including public-private
partnerships, proactive participation in
development programs with the national
government or donors, and contracting out for
services. Most importantly, the general public
readily recognizes the real advances that have
been made.

B. Building Successful Programs

Buttressed by an understanding of
decentralization and democratic local
governance in an ideal scenario, we need to look
at how to transition to establishing strategic
goals for a particular country program and to
develop programs to meet these goals. In doing
so, three primary questions must be answered.
The first deals with the country assessment and
asks if USAID should begin, or continue,
programming decentralization and democratic
local governance activities in a particular
country. The second addresses the program
strategy. It examines in which of three key areas
USAID should strategically intervene to
maximize impact on democratic development,
given limited resources and a determination that
decentralization and democratic local
governance is an appropriate assistance area.
The third focuses on ways to achieve strategic
objectives and asks what are the available
programming options and how USAID DG
officers choose among them to ensure impact
and to sustain program efforts.

FIGURE 1: Questions for the Three-phase Programming Process

Question #1: Assessment
Should USAID begin (or continue) programming decentralization and democratic local governance activities in the country?
Answering this question is the
essence of the firstor assessmentphase.

Question #2: Strategy

Given limited resources and a
determination that decentralization and democratic local governance is an appropriate assistance
area, in which of the three key areasthe enabling environment,
democratic local governance,
and/or local government capacityshould USAID strategically
intervene to maximize impact on
democratic development? Answering this question is at the
heart of the secondor strategy
developmentphase.

Question #3: Tactics

What are the available programming options and how do USAID
officers choose among them to
ensure impact and to sustain program efforts? Answering this
question is at the core of the
thirdor tacticalphase.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

13

These questions, found in Figure 1, provide the

foundation for the three-phase programming
process that is developed in this handbook. In
the following sections, we provide a model for
assessing the country context for
decentralization and democratic local
governance programming, raise key strategy
considerations, and provide a range of tactical
responses designed to help DG officers make
informed judgments and design successful,
results-oriented programs.

14

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

III. ASSESSING THE

ENVIRONMENT

be addressed as well. We bring out many of

these issues in the following pages.
Once complete, the assessment should help
officers determine a few key elements:

The question of context is a critical

consideration in determining whether a USAID
Mission begins decentralization or democratic
local governance activities in a country. 1
Effective programming requires a full
understanding of the environment within which
an intervention is proposed.
For a country under review, we must answer the
following question: In country X, should USAID
begin (or continue) programming
decentralization and democratic local
governance activities?
This section provides a methodology for
conducting an assessment of any country
environment. Because this methodology has
been devised to apply to any country in the
world, it is necessarily a general approach. It
simply cannot directly address all of the details
of every national experience; it does not answer
all the questions that can emerge. Yet, by relying
on two fundamental criteriapolitical will and
local governance traditionthis approach does
provide the basis for a thorough examination of
the potential for decentralization and democratic
local governance programming.
The simplicity of this methodology is not meant
to suggest that conducting an assessment is an
easy or quick task. Considerable time,
information collection, analysis, understanding,
and considered judgement must be brought to
bear. A wide-ranging series of key issues must

For a discussion of decentralization and democratic

local governance programming as part of a broader DG
strategy, see Gerald F. Hyman, Conducting a DG
Assessment: A Framework for Strategy Development
(Advance Copy), Technical Publication Series
(Washington, DC: USAID/Center for Democracy and
Governance, December 1999).
1

The extent to which programming in this

area is likely to succeed, which is a key
consideration in deciding how to
allocate scarce resources

The depth, at least initially, of USAID

involvement, assuming the decision to
intervene has been made

In a country where the environment is poor, for

example, there may be no reason to initiate a
program because there is little chance that
decentralization will be instituted, that local
governance can progress democratically, or that
a stronger national democratic system will
result. Or, if there is some chance of success in
these areas, perhaps a minimal involvement
would be best initially, pending future
developments. In short, as will be discussed in
subsequent sections, the assessment of country
context will feed into the development of a
strategy and tactics.
In considering a program strategy, the USAID
officer must, to a great extent, accept the
existing country circumstances as they have an
effect on decentralization and the development
of democratic local governance. Those
circumstancesthe environment in which we
find ourselvesmay be highly favorable in one
country and, for a variety of reasons, dismal in
another. Another country environment may be in
the middle range, or somewhat favorable to
decentralization and local governance
programming. It is important to note that there
are as many possible scenarios as there are
countries.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

15

A. Fundamental Concepts

Assessing the environment requires

consideration of two fundamental concepts:

Vested interest in the status quo by

government and other key actors

Little or no promulgation of laws

granting authority and resources to local
government

Virtually no implementation of laws that

may have been passed

Political will

Local governance tradition

Examined together, these two concepts paint a

clear picture of the current country environment.
The following discussion and guidelines are
aimed at helping DG officers examine the state
of political will and local governance tradition in
their host countries.
1. Assessing Political Will
Political will is the level of commitment a
country demonstratesparticularly, but not
exclusively, its national government leadersto
decentralization and the development of local
government. The degree of political will can be
viewed along a continuum ranging from strong
to moderate to weak.
Strong political will is generally characterized
by

A clearly stated desire to reform by the

government and key non-governmental
actors

Enactment of laws (constitutional,

regulatory, or otherwise) to carry out
those reforms

Implementation of the laws

Weak political will is generally characterized by

16

Lip service given to the need for and

importance of decentralization

In assessing political will, the DG officer might

consider the following question: Why are we, as
a part of the USAID Mission, considering
decentralization or democratic local government
programming at this particular time? The answer
is likely to be a telling sign of the host countrys
desire to reform.
Examination of political will requires
consideration of a variety of indicators of a
countrys interest or potential interest in
decentralization and the development of
democratic local governance. Table 1 provides a
number of sample questions that would can be
useful in this regard. The answers will give
considerable insight into the level of political
will in a country.
It is important to emphasize that assessing
political will is a subjective exercise, the result
of an in-depth analysis that is best made
following an examination of as many of the
relevant factors as possible. There is no single,
correct answer, and two people can easily
disagree after examining the same set of
circumstances. Moreover, political will tends to
be a momentary phenomenon. It can suddenly
shift for a variety of reasons, such as a change in
government leadership.
Nonetheless, guidelines for assessing political
will can be developed. The following guidelines
may reflect general tendencies; they may apply
to some countries more than others. Yet they
prove helpful to DG officers who must make
such an effort:

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Strong Political Will

IF you are considering programming activity
because the national government has passed
important reforms and is seeking assistance
in implementing them...
THEN the level of political will is probably
strong, although you should continually
assess the degree to which implementation
actually occurs. The presumption here is
that governments generally enact new laws
with the intent to implement them.
Moderate Political Will
IF you are considering programming activity
because the ruling government or party
coalition is reformistlooking to
modernize politically and economically in
the midst of a transition from a totalitarian
or authoritarian regime...
THEN the degree of political will is probably at
least moderate, especially if decentralization
or local governance is already on the policy
agenda. Today, decentralization is viewed
internationally as integral to state
modernization. The national government is
likely to respond favorably to external
programs.
IF you are considering programming activity
because the ruling government or party
coalition has some political or economic
stake in decentralization and indeed
recognizes it as such...
THEN the level of political will is likely to be at
least moderate. Governments often take
action if they view such action to be in their
own interest. Under this condition,
persuading them to move ahead is much
easier.
Moderate to Weak Political Will
IF you are considering programming activity
largely because donors are pressuring the
national government to decentralize for
economic or political reasons...

THEN the level of political will is likely to be

moderate to weak. Countries may seek to
please donors to the minimal extent possible
to obtain donor financial support or
presence.
IF you are considering programming activity
because a new, formerly opposition, national
government is coming into power in a
country where important decentralization,
such as constitutional reform, was
previously instituted...
THEN political will is likely to be moderate to
weak. Often new governments seek to
distinguish themselves politically from their
predecessors and, thus, may oppose
decentralization or even attempt to reverse
it. The political relationship between the
new and preceding government is critical in
this case.
IF you are considering programming activity
because local government leaders, or
perhaps a minister or members of the
legislature, are pushing or interested in
pushing for decentralization reforms
THEN the level of political will is likely to be
moderate to weak, depending on the lobbys
strength. Especially in a centralized system,
the decision to decentralize will ultimately
come from the central government.
Convincing national leaders to transfer some
of their power to the local level would likely
require a favorable context and/or a strong
incentive for doing so.
IF you are considering programming activity
because new or historic local elections are
forthcoming, but have been repeatedly
delayed...
THEN the level of political will is probably
moderate to weak. There is a reason for the
delay, most probably a lack of consensus
among the political establishment for such
reform. This situation may well continue for
some time.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

17

TABLE 1: Questions for Assessing Political Will

Political priority

Political conviction

Is decentralization a top political priority? If so, why? Who are its primary advocates
or 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 dominant
political coalition?
Are there key and influential central government personnel who have taken a
personal, strong, and favorable interest in the proposed decentralization initiatives?
Are there key and influential central government personnel who have taken a
personal, strong, and unfavorable view of the proposed initiative?
How prominent is the commitment to decentralization in relation to other major
reforms?
Is decentralization required by constitutional reform, a new law, or simply policy
change?

Ancillary support

Is there support or opposition from other constituencies, particularly within civil

society for a decentralization effort?

Degree of
understanding

Is there widespread understanding of the political and socioeconomic implications of

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

Local political
environment

Is there an established subnational political environment that can have an impact on

the debate?

Hidden political
agendas

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

Political
controversy

Could the effort become a lightning rod for political controversy, leading to diminished
support for decentralization?
Is support for decentralization likely to continue if the power balance begins to shift?

Alignment with
regional and local
opinion

Fiscal context

Danger of capture
by local elites

18

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, commodity
process, etc.) stable?
Does the planned decentralization initiative include the strengthening of local
finances?
What are the perceived financial risks?
Do central mechanisms prevent local elites from co-opting the resources that will be
transferred to the local level?
Are there powerful constituencies who will be adversely affected and will they accept
or attempt to neutralize the decentralization reform?

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Weak Political Will

IF local elections have not been held and, despite
some assurances from the government, are
not scheduled or planned...
THEN political will is weak.
2. Assessing Local Governance Tradition
The second major factor to be considered in
assessing a country environment for
decentralization and the development of
democratic local governance is its local
governance tradition. The local governance
tradition of a country refers to the degree of
decentralization and the level of effectiveness
and responsiveness of formal local government
institutions to the community at-large. The
concept of local governance tradition
encompasses the full range of issues that can
involve virtually any local system: capacity to
perform; level of public participation in local
affairs; degree of local officials accountability
to the public; political, financial, and
administrative autonomy; etc.
A countrys local governance tradition reflects
the nature of the local systemnot only as it
exists on the ground today, but also as it has
developed over decades past. This concept calls
for a close reading of the countrys history of
local governance. Traditions, moreover, tend to
change quite slowly. Unlike the rapid shifts that
can occur with respect to political will, one is
unlikely to see major new developments in the
tradition of local governance for some time.
This concept must also include consideration of
ethnic, indigenous, or other traditional forms of
governance that may, for good or ill, influence
or even substitute for the formal local
government structure.
Finally, like political will, local governance
tradition can be viewed along a continuum
ranging from strong to moderate to weak.

Assessing a countrys local governance tradition

requires examining a wide variety of aspects of
the local system. Table 2 provides a wide range
of questions that bring out the key issues that
need to be raised on an assessment of local
government tradition. As with political will,
general assessment guidelines, based on USAID
experience, can be developed. The following
guidelines are provided to assist DG officers
who must consider the local governance
tradition of the country in which they work:
A strong local governance tradition is generally
characterized by

A long history of popularly elected local

governments that effectively provide
basic services, such as street repair or
park and cultural services, and even
some advanced functions, such as the
management of utilities, education and
health care. (See also Section II.)

Local governments that are held

accountable for their financial
expenditures by established practice, the
public, and national government
oversight

A considerable degree of local

government autonomy

A decentralized or decentralizing
democratic system of national
government

Political competition or a diversity of

political parties at the local level

A positive, if not institutionalized,

relationship between traditional ethnic
or indigenous forms of local decisionmaking and elected leaders of local
government

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

19

TABLE 2: Questions for Assessing Local Governance Tradition

Elections and choice of key
officials

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?

Ethnic or indigenous
governance

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

Revenue-raising authority

Does local government have adequate authority to raise revenue commensurate with increased responsibilities
after decentralization? Does it use that authority?
Does local government have the authority to take effective collection actions against tax evasion?

Resource retention

Do local governments retain resources that are raised locally?

Legislative authority

Do local governments have the autonomy to pass and enforce laws or ordinances necessary to carry out their new
responsibilities?
Do local governments have third parties to whom they can turn who are likely to impartially adjudicate disputes
between local and central governments and who can issue binding decisions?

Resource allocation system

Is there a planning and budgeting system in place that allocates resources on the basis of program goals and a
balanced 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?

Decision-making structures

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

Juridical status

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?

Civic and advocacy

organizations

Do local officials actively participate in the work of professional organizations whose mission is to promote better
and 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?

Communication and
accountability

Is useful information about the government made broadly available in regular and predictable ways, and do
citizens follow and act on such information?
Do citizens and the news media have free and unrestrained access to public records and meetings, and do they
use this access?
Do the news media operate freely and work effectively with elected officials and staff, and do the media share
accurate, comprehensive local government information?

Citizen participation

Are there established, well-understood systems for ensuring informed, effective citizen input before decisions are
made? 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?

Management authority

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?

Expenditure controls

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

Self-evaluation

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

Capacity

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?

Local government
association(s)

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

Capture by bureaucracy

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?

Civil service system

Is the labor market such that professional personnel are likely (and able) to accept jobs with local governments? Is
a 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 training
resources available?

20

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Local government administrations that

are not highly politicized and that
demonstrate a measure of staff career
stability, probably based on a local civil
service law
Increasingly open and participatory
local government with active
community involvement

A weak (or essentially nonexistent) local

governance tradition is often characterized by

Appointed local officials or officials

who have been recently elected for the
firstor one of the few timesin the
countrys history

Local governments that provide few, if

any, services without the involvement
and support of the central government
(Local capacity is weak.)

Nationally, a highly centralized system

in which authoritarian national leaders
are popularly elected, yet remain set on
maintaining strong central control

A few national, centralized, political

parties that dominate politics at all levels
(Local political diversity is weak.)

Conflict between tradition or ethnic

local traditions and the administrations
of elected local leaders

Local administrations that are managed

largely according to the interests of the
party in office as opposed to the
interests of the community as a whole

Local staff whose careers are almost

entirely determined by their political
party affiliation (i.e., when your party is
in, you are in; when your party is out,
you are out)

Considerable waste, corruption, and

weak oversight of local government
expenditures

Little citizen involvement or interest in

local public affairs

B. An Assessment Methodology
The next step is to develop a model that
promotes a better understanding of how the
concepts of political will and local governance
tradition provide insight into the prospects for
programming in decentralization and democratic
local governance. One can fairly claim that
every country in the world lies somewhere along
the continuum between the two extremes
strong and weakof political will and local
governance tradition. Considering the two
factors together, one can illustrate the realm of
possibilities to describe any developing
countrys combination of political will and local
governance tradition.
Figure 2 is designed to help DG officers
examine the possible country combinations of
political will and local governance tradition. The
level of political will is gauged on the (vertical)
y-axis, increasing as one moves away from the
origin. The level of local governance tradition is
gauged on the (horizontal) x-axis, also
increasing from weak to strong as one moves
away form the origin. Divided into four
quadrants, the graph allows general
categorization of each country:
Quadrant A: Countries with strong political will
and weak local governance tradition
Quadrant B: Countries with strong political will
and strong local governance tradition
Quadrant C: Countries with weak political will
and weak local governance tradition
Quadrant D: Countries with weak political will
and strong local governance tradition

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

21

FIGURE 2: Assessing Political Will and Local Governance Tradition

y-axis

Strong

POLITICAL WILL

B
z

D
Strong

Weak
0

Weak

x-axis

LOCAL GOVERNANCE TRADITION

The state of any nations political will or local

governance tradition can be tracked on the
graph. Again, a country may fall anywhere,
reflecting the variety of mixes of political will
and local governance tradition. For example,
country Z exhibits a moderate level of
political will and a moderate local governance
tradition.

consequently, has implications for programming.

To give DG officers a better idea of the
assessment methodology, a country example
follows the description of the programming
implications of each quadrant.

DG officers can identify where their respective

countries fall on the graph by carefully
considering the factors discussed earlier in this
section and the issues raised by the questions in
Tables 1 and 2.
C. Programming Implications
We can now draw general conclusions, for the
reasons provided below, about the programming
environment in each quadrant. Each quadrant
reflects the results of the country assessment of
political will and local governance tradition and,
22

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

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 local
governance. Given the weak local governance tradition, the local system also has much to improve. There
are likely to be many areas at all levels of government in which to work.

Bolivia, 1994-1995: A Quadrant A Case

Strong Political Will Coupled with a Weak Local Governance Tradition
In 1994, Bolivias determination, primarily at
the highest levels of government, to decentralize
and to reform its local governance system was
abundantly clear. By the end of 1995, Bolivians
elected local officials nationwide, municipal
financial resources were doubled, and local
governments took on a variety of new
responsibilities. The landmark 1994 Popular
Participation Law (PPL), which established
municipal governments across the national
territory and created a series of mechanisms to
help ensure community participation in and
oversight of local investment decisions, was
being instituted. The administrative
decentralization law, which deconcentrated a
series of key responsibilities to the nine
departments in order to support the development
of the new subnational system, would soon take
effect.
Strong Political Will. In 1993, Gonzalo
Snchez de Lozada, Bolivias third president
since the return to democratically elected
government in 1985, won the presidency on the
promise of a more socially conscious stage of
economic development that accorded high
priority to decentralization and anti-corruption.
The new president and his team repeatedly
stated their commitment to decentralizing power,
developed the PPL and other reforms, and then
began instituting them. As observers could
readily see, the governments motivations were
strong: to make the Bolivian state more efficient
and equitable through decentralization; to
improve local government responsiveness and
accountability; to turn the local system into an
engine of economic growth; and to incorporate
all segments of societyespecially women and

indigenous groups with their own modes of local

governanceinto the national life. He also
sought to counter the power of
regional elites, who for decades had been
pushing for their own, contrary solutions to the
problem of a weak state. Carrying a strong
mandate for change, Snchez de Lozadas
government was intent, in many respects, on
deepening Bolivian democracy.
Weak Local Governance Tradition. Until
December 1995, Bolivia had never elected local
government officials across the national territory
(from 1949 to 1987, when municipal councils
were abolished, no elections were held at all).
Before 1995when municipal governments
could be found only in provincial and
departmental capitalsmost rural Bolivians had
no formal local representation; they had been
historically excluded from the nation-state.
Municipal finances were extremely weak and
revenues were distributed to urban areas to the
virtual exclusion of outlying areas. The central
government, moreover, had long ago absorbed
most municipal functions as it strongly
centralized power, especially after the 1952
revolution. Given the local governments long
record of ineffectiveness, the general public had
no faith in them. Indigenous groups in longignored areas, however, developed deep-rooted
forms of democratic organization and communal
decision-making that continue today. The
incorporation of these customs into the formal
structure of local government was a prime
objective of the PPL.
Source: Gary Bland, USAIDs Center for
Democracy and Governance

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

23

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

South Africa, 1994-2000 and Beyond: A Qualified Quadrant B Case

Strong Political Will Coupled with a Strong Local Governance Tradition
South Africa is one of the few developing countries
that developed a strong local governance tradition.
Yet that tradition applied only to the local
governments controlled by and for the white
minority. Under apartheids dual local government
structure, as whites prospered, the black population
was denied local representation and access to public
services. With apartheids demise, local government
reform is seen as key to uniting the country.
Strong Political Will. Local government is
undergoing a dramatic transformation in South
Africa, mirroring the tremendous change in society
following the end of apartheid. Prior to the 1994
elections, the ruling Nationalist Party and the African
National Congress negotiated an end to the
conflictive stalemate over the future of the black
townships and minority dominated local
governments. The result was the passage of interim
laws establishing the institutional frameworks
metropolitan, urban, and rural governmentsfor a
new local system. These laws set in motion the threephase transition to a new subnational system of
government that continues today. They provide for
non-discriminatory participation in local politics;
partially proportional representation in elections; and
the amalgamation of these formerly segregated local
jurisdictions into institutions that placed
administrative responsibility on the formerly white
executive and managerial structuresthe strongest
financially and institutionally. The 1996 constitution
essentially ratified these changes. It provides for
comprehensive decentralization, abolishes the former
racially divided jurisdictions, and subdivides the
country into three democratically elected levels of
government. A variety of new functions are
decentralized and local units have significant
taxation, borrowing, and revenue authority. Under
the transition, new laws are replacing the interim
reforms. In 1997, the South African Local
Government Association (SALGA) was legally
established. A year later, the national government
24

released a white paper outlining the transformation of

the local government system. In carrying out that
plan, the national government is redrawing the
boundaries of municipal governments. The 1999
Structures Act provides for the establishment of
different types of municipalities, allocates of powers
among the types, and addresses issues for local
elections. Additional legislation is under
consideration. The transition will formally be
complete with the fall 2000 elections.
Strong Local Governance Tradition. In whitedominated areas, apartheid fostered accountability,
involvement of the community in political life, and
effective service delivery. White local councils were
elected from 1910 onward. Blacks, segregated into
homelands and townships on the outskirts of
urban areas, were highly dependent on the central
government and had limited access to public goods
and services. Black councils began only in 1982, and
Coloured and Indian communities did not have their
own administrations. Under apartheid, despite
centralization, many white local governments
administered well-structured governments with
considerable authority and effectiveness. Their
financial standing and management was fairly strong.
Strong tax bases (and inequitable water and
electricity sales to black townships) allowed the
creation of investment funds. A key to todays
reorganization of municipalities is to take advantage
of institutional capacity developed in the past (which
generally did not emerge in small municipalities).
Building democratic governancecitizen trust,
ending the culture of non-payment, affirmative
action, etc.is a daunting prospect. Trained
personnel have left local governments and
bureaucracies slowly respond to the new leadership.
Yet, experienced administrators are able to serve as
mentors for new staff.
Sources: Bird and Vaillancourt, 1998; Wunsch,
1998; and World Bank, 2000.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Quadrant C: Weak Will, Weak Tradition. Although the environment for programming is poor, USAID
may want to get involved. These developing countries lack the will to decentralize and elected local
governments, if they exist, are so weak that they have little lobbying force at the national level. Countries
that 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 building
momentum or pressure for change at the national level, especially if a change in political will is
foreseeable or the prospects for local elections in the near future are good.

Ukraine, 1992-1999: A Quadrant C Case

Weak Political Will Coupled with a Weak Local Governance Tradition
Until recently, the legal basis for local governance in
Ukraine has been in flux. The former socialist country
lagged behind its counterparts at the national and local
levels. There was no constitutional basis for local
government as late as 1996. Although altered several
times, the old Soviet constitution and 1992 Law on
Local Rada of Peoples Deputies and Local SelfGovernance did include the relevant legal provisions.
At the local level, only the former Polish and AustroHungarian cities had local governance traditions that
were remnants from prior to the 1940s.
Weak Political Will. Unlike some Central
European countries, Ukraine has not had political
leadership with a strong mandate to either stay the
course or significantly change the course. It is roughly
divided between a significantly socialist-leaning
population in the central and eastern part and a more
market-oriented population in the west. About twothirds of the population live in the eastern and central
parts. Any political leader in Ukraine must take this
demographic/political situation into consideration
when running for office. This has led to political
leadership and representation in the national
parliament, which can be characterized as
directionless. The absence of a strong mandate for
change has led to political constructs that pass
responsibility from one governing entity to another.
The parliament blames the president, and the president
passes blame to the prime minister, who responds that
the parliament is not passing the needed laws. When
Ukraine voted for a new constitution in 1996, it
became clear that some 50 laws would have to be
amended or new ones written in order for the
constitution to become a useful document. Of these
laws, threehave yet to be completed and implemented,
and they linger in committees. They are the Law on the
Presidents Administration, the Law on the Cabinet of
Ministers, and the Law on the State Administration.
They reflect the ongoing battle between the president
and the parliament, and between regional (oblast)

administrations and cabinet ministers over the new

authority relations that these laws eventually will
establish. The process of decentralization of
administrative responsibility and authority is closely
linked to the outcome of political battles and
compromises connected to these three laws.
Weak Local Governance Tradition. Although
Ukraine had local administrations and councils during
the Soviet period, their leadershipas well as that of
administrative bodies during the Russian Imperial
period prior to 1918represented the central
government located in Moscow. It is important to note
the difference between the popular perception of a
central government located in the geographical capital
versus a central government located in another
country. During the Soviet period, Kievs function was
perceived as regional, and not national, both by central
government in Moscow and by local administrators.
Ukrainian oblast and municipal officials function was
to execute decisions that were primarily outlined in
Moscow. This tradition continues today at the oblast
level; only the source of central authority has changed.
On the municipal level there has been a significant
change since independence, as mayors and local
council members are directly elected locally. Oblast
administrators continue to be appointed by the
president. In addition, the budget crisis has pushed
local governments to recognize that more local
authority is needed to address pressing problems on
the local level. The lack of past traditions other than in
western Ukraine hinders the acceleration of this
process. It is important that most officials in the central
government come from areas of Ukraine with few
local self-government traditions; few people in central
government have practical experience with municipal
government other than as an implementing organ for a
central government.
Source: Bohdan Radejko, Research Triangle Institute

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

25

Quadrant D: Weak Will, Strong Tradition. The environment for programming is likely to be poor. The
national government shows little or no desire to decentralize and strengthen local autonomy and the
country already has a relatively strong local government system. Relative to other areas of support, this
country 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 Case

Weak Political Will Coupled with a Strong Local Governance Tradition
Local governments have existed in Tunisia since
the late 1800s. Indeed, in the period leading up
to independence in 1956, local governments
with elected councils had significant
responsibilities for a variety of local services.
While some of this responsibility waned, local
government remained a significant feature of the
public sector, with the number of local
governments increasing by the late 1980s. In
addition, in conjunction with economic
liberalization reforms in the early 1990s, further
local government reforms were enacted,
particularly to develop improved local
infrastructure financing. However, these reforms
were not accompanied by a parallel effort to
strengthen democratic local governance. Local
elections remained dominated by the ruling party
and relations with civil society were largely
channeled through appointed neighborhood
committees.
Weak Political Will. The government was
engaged in meaningful reform to increase the
resource base of local governments and
strengthen the capacity of local government
managers. But reform was not accompanied by
parallel efforts either to reassert the role of local
government in services or to expand the
democratic nature of local governance. The
threat of Muslim fundamentalist movements was
the primary justification for maintaining control
and not permitting more dynamic relationships
between local government and civil society. The
ruling political party continued its strong
dominance of local elected bodies: The
relatively small number of opposition-elected
local officials declined from the elections in
26

1990 to those of 1995. Further, the relationships

between local governments and citizens groups
were largely channeled through comits de
quartierneighborhood committeeswhich
were under the control of the Ministry of
Interior.
Strong Local Governance Tradition. By
1885, most major cities in Tunisia were
governed by a local government structure
including an elected board and a strong mayor.
These structures have been maintained to the
present, within an evolving legal and institutional
framework. After independence in 1956,
municipal service responsibilities were reduced
in favor of national parastatal service agencies
for water, wastewater, and housing, for example.
These arrangements were thought to be more
efficient. At the same time, municipal
governments retained vital services such as
economic infrastructure, solid waste
management, and transport. City hall remained
the focus of attention on the local landscape. The
government of Tunisia continued to expand the
number of municipalities, from 175 in 1975 to
246 in 1989, and also expanded their role in
economic and social development planning.
Further, in the 1990s the government
significantly expanded the financing available to
local governments for infrastructure investments
by capitalizing a municipal development bank.
The rapid increase in the demand for funds from
the bank attested to the local governments
desire to be active leaders in local development.
Source: Henry P. Minis, Research Triangle
Institute

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

Since much of the developing world is

characterized by highly centralized systems,
most of the countries in which USAID works
fall into quadrants A and C. That is, in the large
majority of USAID-presence countries, local
governance is weak. The programming
environment, therefore, is largely predicated on
the countrys level of political will for reform.
D. Other Considerations
A number of other issues bear consideration in
deciding whether or not to program in the area
of decentralization and democratic local
governance.
This handbook recognizes that a countrys level
of political will can shift dramatically in short
order. Assessments should be revisited regularly
and when new activities or program shifts are
under consideration.

The requirements of U.S. legislation,

perhaps a law that requires development
of a U.S./host-country foundation
committed to democratic reform

Direction from another U.S. government

agency to initiate or enhance
decentralization or democratic local
governance programming

In such cases, an assessment of political will and

local governance tradition provides insight that
can be applied in program strategy and tactical
design. As in all phases of program planning and
execution, participation of host-country partners
and stakeholders in the assessment will enhance
results while simultaneously building
relationships and commitment to program
implementation.

The handbook also recognizes that, in practice,

political will and local governance tradition can
have little or nothing to do with the decision to
initiate programming activities in a country. A
variety of other factors come into play. The
decision to program or not to program is often
pre-determined in response to host-country
events, U.S. policy objectives, program
mandates, available resources, activities of other
donors, and other considerations outside a
missions and a assessment teams scope of
authority.
Research conducted in the preparation of this
handbook revealed multiple trigger points and
motivations for the initiation of decentralization
and local governance programming. Examples
include the following:

Political change or natural disasters that

increases host-country demand and
spurs U.S. policy direction for rapid
implementation of basic services in
specific regions or neighborhoods

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

27

IV. DEFINING
PROGRAMMING
STRATEGY
The next programming step is to develop a
strategyto examine the country context,
various stakeholders and their interests, and,
among other factors, the nature of potential
interventionsto help ensure that resources
dedicated to the program achieve the missions
stated objectives. Defining a strategy involves
developing an approach that can maximize
impact on democratic development.
In this section, we assume the USAID Mission
has assessed the environment and other relevant
factors and decided to proceed with a DG
program in decentralization and/or democratic
local governance.
A. Options for Strategic Focus
Following the organizational framework
mentioned above and reflecting the nature of
existing USAID programming, strategy options
can 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 locallevel interests to influence the center. The
objective is to encourage the national
government to enact and/or institute, assuming
the circumstances are right, an effective
decentralization program, including free and fair
local elections.
Developing democratic local governance:
Activities focused primarily at the local level.
The objective is to assist local government and
community efforts to create local government
that operates in a more responsive, participatory,
accountable, and increasingly effectiveor
more democraticfashion.

Building local government capacity:

Activities focused primarily at the local level.
The objective is to improve local government
performance as measured through, primarily, a
stronger financial position and increasingly
effective public service delivery. Financial,
administrative, and managerial capacity are all
included in this area of programming. For more
detail, see the publications of USAIDs Office of
Environment and Urban Programs in the list of
references and web sites at the end of this
handbook.
A choice on strategy may involve one, two, or
all three of these areas. Since national-level
activities affect those at the local level and vice
versa, the objective in this phase of
programming is to determine where the strategic
emphasis is best placed. The completed
assessment, as outlined in the preceding section,
should produce a wealth of information and data
helpful in determining the strategic focus area.
Some examples of the questions the DG officer
would consider, based on the findings of the
assessment, include the following:

Did the assessment of political will at

the national level reveal an opportunity,
barrier, or driving force that indicates a
need to focus on creating an enabling
environment that favors greater local
autonomy? To exercise more control
over raising and applying local revenue?
To work more effectively with NGOs
and private business on privatization of
and contracting for local services?

Did the assessment reveal a strong

willingness, but little experience, among
local government officials and civil
society organizations to collaborate on
community development, social services
delivery, or other areas of importance to
the mission? Did the examination of
local governance tradition indicate that
fiscal accountability systems, including

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

29

communication with citizens and the

news media, are weak, are contributing
to mistrust, or are hindering meaningful
involvement of citizens in critical local
decisions?

Did the assessment reveal that local

governments have minimal or no
experience in critical service delivery,
finance, and management systems? Is
this limitation critical to fulfillment of
responsibilities that already have been
transferred to the local level?

Did the assessment uncover a strong

local-level demand and opportunity for
visible results in an identified area
such as health care, public participation,
or public utility managementof
strategic concern to the mission?

Additional questions to stimulate discussions

about strategy options and potential openings in
the national enabling environment, democratic
local governance, and local government capacity
building 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

30

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

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

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

Have local governments formed (or are they forming) a broad-based national municipal association that
could serve as the voice of local government in development and implementation of a decentralization
legislative agenda, laws, and regulations? Is the association influential with key elected and administrative
officials 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 and
democratic local governance activities? How does existing mission programming benefit from program
initiatives in this area?

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

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

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

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 and
front-line municipal officials and requested additional assistance in this area?

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

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

Are news media reports on local government accurate and comprehensive? Are reporters covering local
government affairs and citizen input in a responsible manner? Have local government officials developed
programs 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 inform
citizens 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 to
public documents?

Building local government capacity.

Or helping local governments enhance performance, primarily through better service delivery and improved
financial 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 preestablished priorities and goals? Have recent local government budget problems called attention to the need
for improved fiscal planning, revenue forecasting, budgeting, expenditure control, and accounting? Does
such inexperience undermine decentralization?

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

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

Is the inadequate performance of local governments as result of insufficient autonomy or inability to take
advantage 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?

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

31

B. Programming Considerations
DG officers should consider various factors
when determining whether to work in just one of
the three areas, in two or more areas, or
simultaneously in all three.
Again, the level of the governments political
will to reform is a primary issue in determining
whether programming at the national level is a
wise investment of resources. Completion of the
environmental assessment outlined in SectionIII
will help DG officers decide if any nationallevel activity is warranted, if certain central
government ministries or legislative body should
receive particular attention, or if a local-level
focus holds the most promise.
The following general strategy options holds the
most potential to support advancement of
democratic local governance:
1. Programming at All Levels of
Government
A multi-pronged approach is the ideal,
particularly in an environment in which action
by the central government is necessary and a
real possibility. In these cases, national-level
program activities should reinforce local
activities and vice versa. Programming targets
the enabling environment, democratic local

governance, and local government capacity.

Cross-cutting sectoral issues, such as
environment and education, can provide focused
opportunities for multi-level programming. Of
course, resource constraints and relatively
limited prospects for achieving stated objectives
may preclude this option.
2. Programming at Just the Local Level
If decentralizing legal reforms have been or are
being instituted or if national reform is unlikely,
then local government should be the focus of
attention. The bottom-up reform approach can
produce results, including building awareness of
and trust in local governments ability to
perform. For example, support for innovative
and effective service improvements in traffic
control, neighborhood issues, and other highprofile areas can garner citizen, media, and,
ultimately, central government attention.
3. Programming at Just the National
Level
Focused intervention at only the national level
providing support for development of reform
legislation, for examplecan be effective in
improving the enabling environment, as was the
case in the Philippines. This can include
activities to strengthen local governments
national lobbying and communication capacities,

USAID/Ugandas Local Strategy

Beginning in the second half of the 1990s, the dramatic transition to democracy in Uganda encouraged the USAID Mission to move
forward with DG programming. Far-reaching decentralization began with the Local Governments Acts of 1997 and local elections
the 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/
Ugandas decentralization and democratic local governance strategy began with recognizing a rare opportunity to take advantage of
the mandate to include women in local government. Civil society overall had experienced tremendous growth recently. Mission
officers 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 understood
the need, given time and resource constraints, to work in a limited number of subnational districts (ultimately in 8 of 45). The
mission focuses on building local government capacity and strengthening democratic local governance. The strategy is to foster
democratic principles through a productive partnership between local government and civil society. Capacity-building is aimed at
improving task completion and increasing local governments ability to provide services such as school provision and road
maintenance, while work with CSOs would simultaneously allow local entities to advocate on behalf of local interests and monitor
decision-making. Female officials are a particular target of capacity-building effort. To help ensure further support for local
government, limited capacity-building assistance is to be provided to Ugandas Ministry of Local Government.

32

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

usually through local government associations.

Sustainable reform efforts, however, call for
subsequent, well-timed local program activities
designed to enhance the local systems ability to
take on new responsibilities.
4. Programming with a Local Emphasis,
Capitalizing on National Openings
Programming may be characterized by a variety
of local governance activities or possibilities,
with few prospects at the national level, perhaps
because the will to reform is limited. Yet DG
officers should be ready to take advantage of
national-level targets of opportunity that can
emerge. For example, possibilities can be found
within the national administration, such as a
particularly sympathetic minister, or within the
national legislature, such as the president of a
key parliamentary commission. Identifying and
taking advantage of these opportunities can lead
to key results and serve as platforms upon which
to develop further activities.
5. Programming Activities with an Intergovernmental Impact
Support for the development of associations of
elected officials and local government
professionals is a prime example. Indeed,

USAID support for boundary-crossing groups,

such as associations, and processes, such as
inter-governmental transfer systems, has proven
effective in multiple countries, such as
Honduras. Technical and financial support for
the design and operation of common print and
computer systems for sharing of government
information, innovations, and lessons learned
has improved inter-governmental understanding
while also supporting transparency objectives
aimed at other sectors.
6. Programming with an Eye Toward
Democratic Local Governance
Local government activities should aim as much
as possible toward enhancing democratic local
governance. The most effective USAID local
programs target opportunities to improve local
administrative and service delivery capacity
while simultaneously working with civil society
or otherwise supporting development of
responsive and participatory governance.
Participatory planning and budgeting as well as
transparent rate-setting procurement are
important examples. Public-private partnerships
can help improve effectiveness and the
accountability of local government.

USAID/Bangladeshs Supply/Demand Strategy

Bangladesh 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 national
democracy. 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 ruling
party distributes resources and patronage. A tradition of informal decision-making by the union council chairperson had created a
strong sense of injustice among the have-nots. Elected union officials are, nonetheless, responsible for important community
concerns, including law and order, infrastructure, and birth and death registers. Their performance is constrained by limited financial
resources, traditional social attitudes, restricted access to information, and other difficulties. Recognizing that the national
government provides sufficient local autonomy, USAID/Bangladesh developed a program focused primarily on building democratic
local 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 program
activities. The disadvantaged, especially women, are targeted, and NGOs, which have become quite active in the country, are the
main vehicle for providing assistance. The plan is broad-based, at various times reaching 30 percent of the countrys unions.
Supply- and demand-based activities are complementary and meant to bring elected officials and their constituents together. On
the supply side, activities focus on helping local elected bodies become more informed about their roles and more responsive
through, for example, leadership training and promoting access NGO development expertise. On the demand side, activities are
aimed at establishing mechanisms for direct citizen access to local government officials and promoting issue-specific community
awareness and social mobilization.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

33

The case studies found in this section provide

examples of the strategies used by four USAID
Missions for their decentralization and
democratic local governance programming. The
experiences of these countriesBangladesh,
Bolivia, Uganda, and Ukrainemay prove
useful to DG officers as they consider their own
approaches.
5. Programming with an Eye toward
Promoting National Democracy
Strategy should consider the potential impact of
local government activities on democracy at the
national level. Because resources are limited,
USAID strategies often involve working with a
select group of pilot localities under the
assumption that this will produce demonstration
effects or replication in local governments that
have not received support. When applicable, DG
officers should assess early on the prospects for
such scaling-up. Will demonstrated progress

in the pilots be sufficient to provoke other local

governments to adopt these new approaches
without external support? If so, can this benefit
the host countrys national democracy? Officers
might consider working with other donors, civil
society organizations, and local government
associations that are interested in promoting
successful pilot activities. The process of
choosing local governments should be done to
avoid a biased sample of the local reality (e.g.,
choosing only local governments with obvious
advantages).

USAID/Ukraine and Municipal Strengthening

Emerging from Soviet domination, Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991. The legacy of central state dominance, a
dysfunctional national bureaucracy that did not serve the public, and a shrinking resource base called for deep-seated reform. Local
government, in particular, emerged as an opportunity to demonstrate that the public sector could perform effectively. Working in a
foreign-policy-priority country, USAID/Ukraine believed local assistance to be crucial because it has a more direct, positive impact
on peoples lives, and therefore improves public perception of economic reform and democracy. As local officials came under
pressure 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 the
development of local government in three cities. Activities sought to improve management, planning, service delivery, and
information systems. The program supported the rise of the Association Ukrainian Cities (AUC), which lobbies for local government
reform (the self-government provisions in the 1996 constitution and the 1997 Law on Local Powers) and supports dissemination of
successful practices. Although local autonomy remains weak, as municipal progress has become increasingly important to the
overall reform effort, follow-on projects have built on previous work: providing technical assistance to improve trolley bus operation
in 12 cities, involving citizens in priority-setting, and institutionalizing the AUC.

USAID/Bolivias Support for Popular Participation

In 1994, as part of a continuing transition to a stable, modern democratic system, Bolivia took a dramatic step toward the
development of representative municipal government. With the passage of the Popular Participation Law (PPL), Bolivia established
regularly elected local governments across the national territory for the first time in its history, created a series of mechanisms to
help 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 capacitybuilding activities, to help implement and institutionalize an effective and responsive local government system. The program began
with support for the first nationwide municipal elections in 1995. The focus then became the provision of training and technical
assistance to elected authorities, including intensive teaching of staff, councilors, new community oversight committees, and
CSOs, in some 20 municipalities. To further broaden the base for democracy and governance, an NGO grant fund was developed
to 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, congresss ability to
respond to new municipal and citizen demands, and the building of links between district-based members of congress and their
constituents in targeted municipalities.

34

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

V.

SELECTING ENTRY
POINTS AND TACTICS

After the assessment is complete and strategies

have been identified, the third task is to identify
and select tactics, or tools, that will support
results and sustainable impact. The initial steps
in this tactical phase include

Identifying program entry point(s)

Choosing appropriate program tools

A. Identifying the Entry Point

An entry point is the initial programming
opportunitythe strategic doorway or point of
entrythat will allow USAID to anchor its
program and optimize overall impact. Ideally,
the programming entry point(s) offers a tangible
focus for both local attention and donor
assistance. An entry point may offer what to do
first and provide an opportunity initially to fill
an important gap in the array of needs. Often,
the entry point will lead to a broader spectrum
of activities.
The entry point depends highly on available
programming resources and the opportunities or
constraints present in the country. There is no
particular limit on the number of entry points
involved. Two or more entry points may emerge
at the national and/or local levels. As the DG
officer weighs programming options in the
strategic focus area(s) against available
resources, the entry point(s) that promises to
have the greatest impact should emerge.
If work with a group of pilot local governments
is anticipated, developing a plan for replication
of successful experience in non-USAID
supported localitiesor scaling-upwill be an
essential consideration for long-term impact.
Working with other donors and local

government associations may prove helpful in

this respect.
Involving mission and host-country stakeholders
brings local knowledge and experience to the
identification process. Broad participation helps
build consensus and commitment to
implementation and experience that supports
institutionalization.
The following is a list of potential entry points
and some discussion of the strategy that might
be involved in using each one. The discussion is
organized according to the three strategic areas
described in Section II: creating a favorable
national enabling environment; developing
democratic local governance; and building local
government capacity. A fourth, critical category
has been added: sectoral entry points, which
allow consideration of potential program
openings in key sectors, such as health care and
education.
1. National Enabling Environment
The following entry points are common in
programming focused on producing effective
decentralization:
a. Implementation of constitutional reforms
recognizing local autonomy
Amending the national constitution can establish
decentralization and democratic local
governance as fundamental guiding principles.
Support for constitutional amendment can be a
key entry point because, without fundamental
reform, the impetus for decentralization may be
tightly restricted. In post-conflict situations,
especially in countries characterized by strong
regional diversity, constitutional reform and the
establishment of a federal system may be at the
center of the national debate.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

35

An amendment-based approach may

Be essential, if the role of the central

government is already defined

Provide a valuable opportunity to

articulate underlying values and
principles

Establish maximum political visibility

and generate broad public discussion
and debate that can, ultimately, combat
opposition and spur action

Outline a general distribution of

responsibilities for central and local
governments, although detail is limited
at the constitutional level

b. Implementation of decentralizing, enabling

legislation
Legislation can establish fundamental principles
and revise the relationships between and
functions of the central and local government.
Bills can be crafted to address changes in the
range of relationships between various line
ministries and their local counterparts.
Legislation can be prepared in tandem with a
constitutional amendment or separately if the
existing constitution is compatible with the
decentralization effort.
For decentralization, a key legislative concern is
the establishment of a local electoral system and
the convening of free and fair elections based on
that system. Local elections can serve as an
excellent entry point for programming. For
information on election-related programming,
see the Centers technical publication, Managing
Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral
Processes. (See ordering information on the
inside back cover.)
Legislation is particularly important in defining
the location of revenue-raising authority and the
36

flow of funds to and from the center. Issues that

can be addressed in enabling legislation include

The responsibility of the central

government to provide continued
financial support to local government
or granting new and equivalent local
authority to raise revenueto support
fulfillment of new responsibilities

The authority of local governments to

design and deploy alternative revenueraising techniques

The authority of local governments to

retain funds they raise

The authority of local governments to

make contracts and release funds
independent of national ministry control

New legislation also can modify other pertinent

laws, such as civil service statutes, that may
constrain decentralization.
c. Implementation of administrative laws,
regulations, and policies
In most instances, decentralization requires
substantial revision of regulations and
procedures. The issuance of conforming and
complying regulations, therefore, can become an
important adjunct to decentralization through
constitutional amendment or passage of
legislation. New regulations can bring
substantial change even in the absence of other
legal reforms.
The following should be kept in mind when
regulations are considered to be a potential entry
point:

Regulations can be issued or revised in a

much more flexible and adaptable
fashion than can constitutional
amendments or new legislation.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

The issuance of new and revised

regulations will likely be essential for
sorting through the tangle of roles and
responsibilities in certain areas (e.g.,
oversight of public utilities).

Issuance of regulations is particularly

useful for defining procedures for
planning and budgeting and for
preventing recentralization.

Civil service regulations can help

support development of a professional
cadre of local civil servants.
Administrative law systems tend to
predate a new decentralization initiative
and are most often used to ensure close
central control rather than to encourage
local initiative.

It is important to note that regulations also can

be crafted to modify, and sometimes thwart, the
enacted legislation supporting decentralization
and democratic local governance. An open
regulatory process that includes opportunities for
public review and input is the best safeguard.
d. Establishment of a legal basis for the
creation of a local government association
A decision to create and develop a national
association with legal standing for advocacy and
representation of local government perspectives
may entail national enabling legislation.
The creation and development of local
associations is an effective way to support local
government development because an association
can serve as an efficient legislative research arm,
a potential source of technical assistance, and a
lobby for legislative reform. Associations can

Advocate decentralization and hold a

vested interest in improved government
performance

Serve as a vehicle for distribution of

innovative experiences in USAID pilot
local governments, as part of a scalingup strategy

Serve as the voice of local government

in decentralization and democratic local
governance initiatives

Serve as a source of technical advice

and assistance on issues of concern to
local elected officials

Help establish professional standards of

conduct and improve the public stature
of local elected officials and civil
servants

Prepare and advocate for passage of a

local government legislative agenda

2. Democratic Local Governance Entry

Points
The following entry points are common in
programming focused on strengthening local
government responsiveness, accountability, and
effectiveness.
a. Creation of opportunities for citizens to
express views on and priorities for local
services
Service is at the heart of local government
performance and, if it meets the expectations of
citizens, builds a sense of ownership that
underlies democratic governance. Establishing
open processes for gathering citizen input on
service priorities, standards, fees, and
satisfaction gives citizens the opportunity to
voice their views and take responsibility as
active participants in the progress of their
community. In addition, it provides the local
government with datafrom those who finance
and rely on the servicesfor informed decisionmaking.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

37

b. Creation of means for citizens and the media

to gain access to public meetings, records,
and information
Information dissemination is the currency of
local government-community relations. Local
policies, laws, and traditions that govern public
records, meetings, and citizens access rights can
be reformed without enabling national
legislation. Local officials can take the lead in
this area by setting standards, instituting
policies, training staff to implement them, and
informing the public of their new rights and how
to exercise them. Many local governments in
developing democracies have demonstrated their
capacity to develop standing information
mechanismscity hall press centers, citizen
information and service centers, annual budget
summary publications, and, increasingly, web
site applicationswith USAID technical
assistance and minimal donor capital investment.
Strengthening communication and information
mechanisms at the local level can be less
onerous than tackling access issues through
national-level legislation. Local practices
developed in targeted jurisdictions can be scaled
up and widely disseminated through local
government or professional associations, civil
society organizations, and news media unions.
Widespread local adoption of these practices
may reinforce or catalyze national-level efforts.
c. Support for participatory procedures
allowing citizen input on decisions
regarding resource allocation and planning
The development and use of procedures for
citizen input on major local government
decisionsthe annual budget, land use, and
constructionbuild trust between local officials
and citizens. This also helps improve decisionmaking, reduce opportunities for corruption, and
build consensus on critical community issues.

38

The budget process, for example, is a practical

entry point that provides an opportunity to

Introduce or reinforce existing

participation mechanisms, such as
neighborhood meetings, focus groups,
and public hearings

Partner with NGOs and the news media

to inform citizens on budget issues and
opportunities to get involved

Demonstrate to local government

officials how participation can elicit
useful information that helps them make
tough budget decisions

Approaching participation at the local level is

less cumbersome and likely to be more effective
than at the national level. People are more likely
to participate if the issues involved, as is usually
the case locally, affect their daily lives.
Participatory processes as well can be tested in a
limited number of target jurisdictions and
encouraged to spread to a larger area.
d. Strengthening local government capacity to
work effectively with the news media
The news media can serve as both a government
watchdog and a partner in sharing clear,
accurate, useful, and timely information about
government services, issues, decisions, and
opportunities for citizens to participate in
decision-making. The media and local
government in new and emerging democracies
have a strong basis for partnership:

They are simultaneously developing the

skills they need to function effectively in
their new environment.

The government has information the

media want and need.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

The media have direct conduits to

citizens.

and can be an important first step to a larger

programming effort.

Where a free press exists, the media will

cover local government issues with or
without the governments cooperation.

f.

The government wants coverage to

include accurate information and its
point of view.

Effort to improve public services often provides

unique opportunities to bring together groups
from many sectorsneighborhood committees,
business, academia, etc.to resolve common
concerns. These concerns can be as narrow as
landscaping a local park or as broad as regional
economic development. The potential for
quickand self-reinforcingvisible results,
especially early on, is best when the focus is
clear and narrow.

A positive relationship between local officials

and the news media can shift government from a
traditionally defensive or critical approach to
media to a more productive, partnership-based
style. By working openly and professionally
with the media, government can engender media
respect and gain accurate coverage of key
decentralization-related issues and services.
By initially working to strengthen the working
relationship between local government and the
media, citizen awareness of community issues,
local government services, and public
opportunities to participate in decision-making
can improve. Media coverage of local
government activities and perspectives,
moreover, is likely to reach central government
audiences.
The Centers publication, The Role of Media in
Democracy: A Strategic Approach, provides
information that can be useful in assessing the
potential of this entry point. (See ordering
information on the inside back cover.)
e. Working to encourage non-traditional
groupswomen, ethnic groups, and other
minoritiesto participate in local
government
Decentralization may open opportunities for
these groups and their leaders to participate in
local affairs for the first time. Training and other
assistance can help bring them into public life,

Promoting partnerships among local

governments, civil society organizations, the
private sector, and other groups

Partnerships give government an opportunity to

move from service provider to facilitative leader,
a role in which it convenes, guides, and
leverages community resources, including
citizen knowledge and skills. In the barn-raising
model used in the United States and other parts
of the world, local government and citizens
suspend their traditional roles as service
provider and passive consumers to become
partners who can contribute whatever they can
to take advantage of opportunities and solve
community problems.2
Partnerships are particularly effective in
economic development, where a variety of local
interests come together to forge a common
vision of what the community can be and to
leverage resources from a variety of
governmental and non-governmental sources.

2
For more information about this model, see the
National League of Cities publication, Connecting
Citizens and Their Government: Civility, Responsibility,
and Local Democracy (NLC, 1996).

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

39

3. Local Government Capacity

Enhancing human capacity is a basic building
block for development. Enhancing local
government capacity to act involves not only
resources, but also the skills and competencies
required to manage them.
The following potential entry points for
decentralization and democratic local
governance programming focus on the
development of local government capacity. For
more detail on municipal finance, see the
publications of USAIDs Office of Environment
and Urban Programs in the list of references at
the end of this handbook.
a. Strengthening the local governments role in
policymaking

Independent organizations of local-elected

officials and professional staff can serve as ideal
partners in policy-related capacity building.
Through research, workshops, and other
activities, they can help develop standard
policies, promote information sharing among
members, serve as a resource center for policy
models, and encourage widespread adoption of
effective practice.
b. Expansion of local revenue-generating
authority
Resource mobilization entry points include the
following:

Revenue authority: Access to resources

for investment is lacking or insufficient
because of inadequately developed
capital markets, poor debt-carrying
capacity (whether real or perceived),
and inexperience with debt as a source
of funds for investment.

Revenue structure: The revenue

structure should provide a degree of
stability and predictability and allow
local government to access tax and fee
resources. Available resources should
represent the localitys range of
economic activities, be buoyant (i.e.,
grow with economic activity/inflation),
allow the local government to recover
costs from users of services that are
private (divisible) in nature.

Size of the local revenue base: The size

of the local revenue base is often
described as a percentage of gross
domestic product and/or total public
expenditures. Because the adequacy of
revenues is a function of service
responsibilities, service delivery
standards or quality relative to a
countrys economic performance is a

Strengthening local government capacity to

develop policy can include technical assistance
and training linked to standard processes:

40

Financial policies associated with the

local government budget

Procurement policy associated with

contracting for and purchasing of goods
and supplies

Policies governing access to local public

records

Open meetings and open records

policies

Public notification policies, particularly

those related to land use and community
planning

Personnel policies associated with

professional development of local
government employees

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

common measurement for determining

revenue needs.

Central-local fiscal transfers: In most

transitional or developing countries,
transfers are an important revenue
source for local governments. They
become a perverse source, however, if
they are merely substitutes for local
resource mobilization authority, are
used primarily to balance budget
deficits, or are distributed primarily on
political terms. Inter-governmentaltransfer reforms typically focus on
developing a more predictable system,
building incentives for good
management (either with explicit
criteria or by eliminating budgetbalancing criteria), and promoting
equity among regions or local
governments that have highly variable
economic bases. They might also be
used as incentives to persuade local
authorities to raise more revenue
locally.
Local control over financial resources:
Increasing local-level management
control over revenues and expenditures
is a key issue in decentralization.
Although effectiveness and efficiency
are important criteria in assigning
responsibility, revenue flows typically
are improved through local control over
tax-base evaluation, rate setting, and
collections. Similarly, allowing local
management of expenditures can
increase responsiveness to local needs
and preferences and avoid residual
control by national ministries such as,
for example, finance and interior.
Overall fiduciary responsibility should
be maintained by post-audit systems.

c. Creation of a national training and policy/

program analytical capacity for local
officials
Strengthening local government officials
analytical skills, management, and operational
capacity can support both policy reform and
service improvement.
Overall training needs in local governments in
transitional and developing countries are vast,
yet the human and financial resources to meet
the needs are relatively modest. It is important,
therefore, to identify the specific training that
will have the greatest impact, and couple it with
appropriate policy and/or structural reforms.
Indeed, training often can be designed to
stimulate discussion of these issues, and
brainstorming on how changed local policies and
structures might look.
Because learning needs are vast and ongoing,
building capacity to meet them requires careful
thought. Many countries, including European
countries such as France and Denmark, have
opted for a centralized local government training
institution. This approach is sometimes criticized
for becoming isolated from local government
operations (and, hence, local government needs)
and for being rigid in the training offered. Other
systems, such as in the United States, are market
based.
One solution in developing and transitional
countries has been to develop a central capacity
to identify priorities yet allow for flexible
delivery through training-provider networks.
Ideally, training is developed and
institutionalized within host-country
organizations that include training and capacity
building in their missions. Potential partners
include local government associations, NGOs/
CSOs, independent foundations, private
consulting firms, universities, and associated
schools of public administration.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

41

4. Sectoral Entry Points

Some entry points are not directly related to DG
programming strategy, but may nonetheless
facilitate change in one or more of the three
focus areas. These are sectoral entry points. A
sectoral entry point takes advantage of an
opening in a sector (or some other policy
concern, such as anti-drug efforts) to influence
decentralization, local democratic processes,
and/or local government capacity. Activities in
health care, education, or environmental reform,
for example, lead to opportunities to work with
local and national government officials, to
improve local service provision, and to involve
sector-based NGOs in local affairs. The impetus
for programming may differ, but result is the
same: improved democratic local governance
and a stronger national democratic system.
Several factors often drive this approach:

Lack of funding for or host-country

interest in decentralization or democracy
and governance activities

Established experience and funding for

health, education, and other initiatives

Allies and policy commitments in key

sectors

Expectation that work in areas such as

health care and education may produce
tangible results, such as policy and
legislative reform, while also generating
citizen support and involvement

Desire to build relationships that can

contribute directly to decentralization,
democracy, and local government
capacity 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 the
management and protection of the Panama Canal
watershed. As part of that strategy, the mission
is working in several municipalities located in
the watershed to strengthen their capacity to
implement land use plans, particularly solid
waste management.
Entry points vary with strategy. There is no
single, correct programming approach to
uncover. DG officers who can carefully identify
that initial strategic doorway(s), however, are
best positioned to select program tactics that
make sense, garner stakeholder support, and lead
to sustainable results.

The Philippines: Legal Reform as an Entry Point

USAIDs entry point in the Philippines was legal and policy reform. The mission worked with legislators
and within the national bureaucracy to help secure passage of the 1991 Local Government Code, a major
decentralization program. This initial work provided an excellent platform for the subsequent Governance
and Local Democracy project, which is focused on helping municipal government use the new law to
become more participatory and effective.
Benin: Improved Local Capacity as an Entry Point
USAIDs planned entry point in Benin was the development of local capacity through local human
resource development. The strategy was based on the missions belief that the success of
decentralization would depend on local officials ability to successfully take advantage of their new service
functions. The plan was to develop training opportunities for a range of local actors so that they would be
more prepared for the new local system. As of 1999, five key Beninois decentralization laws were
pending.
42

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

B. Selecting Program Tactics

Keeping with the organization of the handbook,
this section on tactical optionsthe tools of the
tradeare organized according to the three
strategic focus areas: creating a favorable
national enabling environment, developing
democratic local governance, and building local
government capacity. This discussion builds on
the preceding sub-section on entry points. In
addition, a table containing a list of tools for the
DG officer to consider follows the discussion of
each strategy area.

others, such efforts may not be feasible, and thus

DG officers might look to help institutionalize
the reforms following their adoption.
Constitutional reform favoring decentralization
or democratic local governance may indicate a
solid commitment to change in this area. It
provides strategic opportunities to apply the
following tools:

Promote the implementation of the

appropriate reform provisions. If new
elections are under consideration or
scheduled, that process may need
support. If new responsibilities are to be
transferred to the local level, that, too,
may require assistance to a particular
office or ministry.

Promote public awareness of and debate

on the reform, its implications for
governance, and the implementation
schedule. Increased public
understanding or pressure for change
can help soften political opposition and
ensure the reforms are instituted.

1. Creating a Favorable National

Enabling Environment
The three major possibilities for formal reform
aimed at achieving decentralization include

Constitutional reform

New legislation

New or revised administrative laws,

regulations, and policy initiatives

National legal reform can pave the way for

improvements at the local level. The enactment
of new legislation is easier to achieve than
constitutional change. On the other hand,
constitutional reform is much stronger and more
difficult to reverse than simple legislation, which
may be more easily modified or ignored.
Administrative or operational change is the
easiest to affect, but it is also the easiest to
ignore or reverse.
a. Constitutional reform
Because constitutional reform implies historic
national redefinition of governmental structures
and responsibilities in response to major national
concerns, it is less susceptible to influence from
outside. In some countries, USAID may be able
to significantly influence the reform process. In

If a choice among these activities is required,

DG officers should favor those activities that
best promote implementation of constitutional
reform. Failure to implement reforms is one of
the major shortcomings of decentralization
efforts.
b. New legislation
New legislation can establish fundamental
decentralization principles, strengthen local
governance, and revise the relationships between
the central and local governments. The scope for
donor support is much greater here, and donors
have had major influences on the text and
implementation of new laws. Assistance can

Help define the extent of

decentralization and the new

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

43

governmental roles and intergovernmental relationships that emerge

Help draft provisions of new local

government and local electoral law

Help develop a law to address the

funding constraints under which local
governments operate (A new law might
increase inter-governmental financial
transfers or enhance their revenuegenerating authority.)

Help modify other pertinent laws, such

as party reform and the enabling statutes
of line ministries, that may be
constraining decentralization and the
development of democratic local
governance

Choosing among these options will be best

determined by the specific in-country
opportunities presented and the relations USAID
has with host-country agencies. DG officers
could, for example, look to build ties to
ministries that may be more supportive of
decentralizing legal reform. In particular,
opportunities to influence the outcome of a new
local finance law should be exploited.
c. New and revised administrative laws,
regulations, and policy initiatives
Decentralization and local governance reform
usually require substantial revision of
regulations and procedures. The issuance of
regulations is, therefore, an important adjunct to
decentralization through the legal reforms
mentioned above. Because they are issued in a
much more adaptable fashion than reform of the
legal code, the opportunity for a USAID role is
usually good where relations with relevant
ministries are positive.

44

Some programming options include

Helping ministries issue and

communicate to the local level the
revised and typically complex
regulations on new governmental roles

Focusing support on regulatory areas

that are especially important to
decentralization and democratic local
governance, such as civil service
regulations, administrative law systems,
and planning and budgeting

Helping ensure that regulations and

procedural rules are not crafted to
modify or thwart the intent of newly
enacted legislation

If an effort to weaken the reform becomes an

issue in the country, this latter option should be
the priority. Successful implementation of the
first two options hinges on the willingness of
national government agencies to enter into
reform of civil service regulations and other
areas that may not be directly related to the
decentralization effort. The first option is likely
to be necessary under any circumstances.
Table 3 provides a series of programming tools
for consideration in creating a better enabling
environment.
National or regional associations can take on a
major lobbying role on behalf of the local
governments they represent. They may work
continuously to engage the central government
in discussions of legal reform that will help
strengthen local democracy. They can, then,
enhance the environment for decentralization.
Local governments in many countries have
neither the resources nor the experience on
which to build effective associations. It should
be noted that associations may also include
independent foundations committed to local

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

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 host
country; explore relevant experiences in
other countries; and suggest remedies

Coordinate roundtables, workshops, and

issues forums to join stakeholders in
identifying problems and possible solutions

Provide research-based advocacy for policy

change where appropriate
Technical assistance:

Supply model constitutional provisions,

regulations, or laws

Provide consultancies to leading central

government branches (e.g., Ministry of
Justice, Ministry of Finance, Office of the
President, Legislative Assembly)

Assist non-governmental public policy

research institutes or U.S.-based private
voluntary organizations that operate within
the country

Conduct comparative analysis of the existing

legislative framework

Assist relevant local government ministry in

redefinition of its mission, roles, and

Technical studies:

Provide technical studies (e.g., guidebooks

on decentralization, new local functions, or
democratic practice)

Conduct detailed analysis for host-country

use on issues such as local government
structure, its new role, and intergovernmental relations
Training:

Conduct seminars and workshops for

decision-makers and provide visiting
professors and other experts on legal reform
issues

Conduct seminars and conferences on

implementation and/or regulatory review

Provide training to staff of policy research

institutes or other institutions that can assist
government in drafting regulations and laws

government reform, freedom of information, and

citizen participation. For approaches and tools in
providing assistance, see the local government
capacity-building discussion provided later in
this section.
It may be that legal reform in areas not
specifically addressing local government can
have as great an impact as local government
legislation itself. Some commons tools for work
in this area include

Support for the development, passage,

and implementation of legislation
related to open records and open
meetings, news media rights and
standards, NGOs, and CSOs
Work with government, NGOs, private
business, and other donors to develop a
comprehensive national anti-corruption

responsibilities and in long-term strategic

planning
Assist local civic groups in understanding
their new roles and responsibilities and in
educating local citizenry

program or targeted anti-corruption

legislation aimed at specific processes,
such as government procurement (The
Centers publication, A Handbook on
Fighting Corruption (USAID, 1999a),
provides additional ideas for
programming consideration.)

Support for the development, passage,

and implementation of sector-specific
legislation, such as health care or
education laws, that can lead to
decentralization in that sector and
perhaps decentralization on a broader
scale

Support for the inclusion and

implementation of standard public
access guarantees for important
decentralization-related norms,
particularly in the areas of finance and
administrative process

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

45

2. Developing Democratic Local

Governance
The development of democratic local
governance requires increasingly responsive,
accountable, participatory, and effective local
government. That is, it calls for improved local
government-citizen interaction, the
strengthening of media reporting on local
government and community affairs, and building
an active, more pluralistic civil society.
a. Local government-citizen interaction
Such interaction is essential to democratic local
governance. In many developing world societies,
citizen involvementand the public official
expectation of community involvementis
traditionally weak or nonexistent, often
characterized by passivity or intimidation. The
objective is to get local officials to seek out and
eventually expect public participation. The
locality needs to become involved, expect results
from its elected leaders, and develop a collective
sense of community. Over time, through
continual learning-by-doing, democratic
governance can develop. Table 4 provides some
options for programming in this area.
b. Local government and the media
Developing responsive and accountable
government requires an informed public. Local
officials must inform the community about local
affairs and about their efforts to address citizens
concerns. Citizens, in turn, must have access to
information to be able to act on their interests. In
many developing countries, in large part because
the media are poorly developed or are dominated
by particular interests, transparency is extremely
weak. Neither local government officials nor
their constituents fully appreciate the value of
information to local affairs. The promotion of
active, independent media to cover local affairs
can help address the lack of transparency. Some
programming options are provided in Table4.

46

c. Civil society organizations

The existence of an active, pluralistic civil
society is believed to be closely related to the
successful emergence of democratic practice. A
healthy civil society can help shape and focus
the energies of concerned citizens and ensure
public accountability to the community. In many
developing countries, however, civil society is
weak, and characterized by clientelism and a
predominance of individualistic interests.
Communities frequently lack civic
consciousness or contain an assortment of selfserving organizations that have little concern for
the public good. The question is how to promote
a civil society that can lead to democratic local
governance. Some programming options can be
found in Table 4.
3. Building Local Government Capacity
Developing democratic local governance
requires improving the financial standing of
local governments so that they can carry out
their responsibilities, especially the delivery of
public services, effectively. It requires
developing their general management,
operational, and policymaking capacity. It also
needs the support of societal organizations, from
businesses to universities, that share their
interests and experiences.
a. Resource mobilization
Local government can do little without money to
pay for its functions. Many developing-world
local governments receive financial transfers
from the central government, but the levels are
insufficient or so use-conditioned that local
autonomy is highly restricted. Local
governments almost invariably need to do
considerable work in developing their ownrevenue sources through improved local tax and
fee collection systems, improving efficiency of
resource use, and increasing access to credit.
Revenue generated locally can prompt citizens

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

TABLE 4: Programming Tools for Developing Democratic Local Governance

Policy reform:
Support reform of electoral process and
procedures to increase responsiveness of
locally elected officials
Build capacity of national electoral commissions
to organize and oversee elections at local levels
Policy dialogue:
Advocate policies to establish local institutions
that can organize and articulate citizen concerns
in a constructive manner and bring these to
bear on the formation of local policy
Promote civic education to improve citizen
understanding of the functions of local
government and the obligations of responsible
citizenry
General technical assistance:
Help create watchdog mechanisms that
promote transparent and accountable
government by spotlighting malpractice and
advocating reform
Provide technical assistance to civic
associations and the NGO sector on practical
matters such as NGO registration procedures,
tax exemption law, comparative charitablegiving legislation, and fundraising practices
Work to strengthen organizations of civic
associations so that they can develop networks
of information exchange and promote joint
action among rural and other community
organizations
Support local institutions that play a partnership
role with local government in the delivery of
services
Government-citizen communication technical
assistance:
Promote consultation mechanisms so citizens
can express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with local government programs
Help strengthen public (both citizen and media)
access to public meetings and records
Promote local government procedures that
allow citizens to provide input before decisions
are made about resource allocation, and
establish oversight procedures
Build capacity at all levels of government to
disseminate information (e.g., press releases,
bulletins) regularly to citizens and other levels of
government

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 transparent
governance and communicators of democratic
local governance experiences, innovations, and
best practices
Support organizations that can educate the
community, advocate the growth of democratic
local governance, and oppose efforts to reverse
favorable trends
Government-media relations technical
assistance:
Support development of municipal press centers
Create opportunities for local government and
media to partner on public information and
participation programs
Develop associations of city communication,
public, and press relations professionals
Conduct a study tour that includes local
government officials and the media to examine
other countries approaches to local government
and media relations
Training:
Provide training to government officials to
establish and monitor performance standards
and codes of conduct
Link management training with subsequent
matching grant support to enhance impact and
sustainability (i.e., scaling-up)
Provide on-site management training to local
officials in pro-democratic governance topics
ranging from public accountability to
participatory planning
Provide off-site participant training or study
tours, preferably in the region and perhaps in
the 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 performance
milestones
Provide grants to organizations that can help
replicate pilot activities

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

47

to monitor more closely how their money is

spent. Table 5 illustrates some of the
programming options available in this area.
b. Service delivery
The ability of local governments to deliver or
improve the existing delivery of public services
is crucial to generating democratic legitimacy
within the community. In many developing
countries, local governments are scarcely
involved in providing anything other than the
most basic public services. Their capacity to do
so is often weak. With decentralization,
however, many local governments are being
called on to become involved in new areas. It is
critical 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 the
technical know-how to develop policy, institute
planning processes, and carry out general
administrative duties, such as budget
preparation. Personnel often are poorly trained;
turnover is high. These technical skills are
essential, however, to the development of
governmental institutions. How are local
governments to obtain them? Table5 provides
options to consider.
d. Institutional sustainability
As we have seen, particularly in low-income
jurisdictions or where education levels are low,
enhancing human capacity is critical for local
institutional development. Institutional
sustainability requires moving beyond the
simple training of public and community
organization officials, however. It also means
helping local actors themselves develop the
capacity to train staff and otherwise
professionally support the long-term, effective
functioning of the local administration. Table 5
includes a variety of options to consider.

48

e. Local government and professional

associations
National or regional associations of local
governments and professional organizations can
be of great value in strengthening the capacity of
local government. They provide local officials
with somewhere to turn for advice and technical
support to address capacity-related questions.
They can support a strategy for replicating
nationwide successful experiences in USAID
pilot local governments. Associations provide
training, manuals, conferences, and newsletters.
They share best practices and promote
professional standards and codes.
If a mission is considering helping create or
support an association, a number of
considerations should be kept in mind. The DG
officer should consider the level of politicization
of the prospective association and ensure that it
does not benefit political parties or interests at
the expense of local government system as a
whole. The association should reflect the local
systems political demographics. It should be
able to secure the participation of a large
majority of the countrys local governments,
provide valued services in exchange for
membership fees, and eventually become selfsustaining. Refer to Table 5 for some sample
programming tools. For more detail on finance,
credit, and service delivery, see the publications
of USAIDs Office of Environment and Urban
Programs in the list of references and web sites
at the end of this handbook.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

TABLE 5: Programming Tools for Building Local Government Capacity

Policy research:

Examine finance, resource management, service

delivery, and other priority trends in the host
country and similar countries

Examine availability and reliability of financial

data

Use workshops and field studies to help the host

country define priority structural and policy
changes
Policy dialogue:

Conduct workshops and other fora to bring

stakeholders together to develop a common
understanding of options and action plans for
fiscal, management, and operational reform

Conduct dialogue at all governmental levels on

fiscal reform, economic growth strategies, and
equity 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 revenue
collection systems

Assist with evaluation of local fiscal conditions

and implementation of open and transparent
budget processes

Support capital improvement planning and

financing of infrastructure improvements

Help strengthen local governments fiscal status

to enable them to qualify for a bond rating

Assist in the establishment of a secondary

municipal bond market

Provide sample policies and models of municipal

creditworthiness

Support technical twinning to transfer skills and

experience on practical management and
operations priorities

Create and facilitate management and operations

teams charged with developing and testing
innovations and sharing experiences

Bring state-of-the-science techniques, appropriate technology, and best practice studies to

those 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 government
finance, budget, and interactive communication
with citizen-customers of local services

Conduct seminars and workshops on such

subjects as customer orientation, quality circles,
performance management, and service delivery

planning
Bring together representatives of local government, NGOs, business, the news media, and
others for training and action planning to enhance
results through improved relationships and
communication
Conduct training needs assessment(s) in a
consensus-building manner to build understanding of and support for training
Develop useful, priority training modules that
integrate new approaches and new training
techniques

Financial assistance:

Invest in and install management systems in key

areas such as accounting and finance, property
management, and cash investment
Private sector and NGO development:

Promote techniques for reinventing local

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

Explore and work to institute mechanisms to

encourage private investment in areas such as
job creation and provision of infrastructure in
designated commercial/industrial areas

Support development of consulting organizations

and think tanks that support local government
capacity development
Support for local government associations:

Bring in-service training, reorientation, and

validation to local government professionals such
as finance directors, public works engineers,
community planners, economic developers, and
communication and public relations professionals

Help associations share best practices within

technical fields

Provide model legislation for quasi-public bodies

that receive financial support from appropriated
funds

Provide institution-building support through

strategic planning, organizational development,
and strengthening of member relations, communication, and advocacy and lobbying skills

Assist in establishing technical twinning relationships with other local government organizations

Provide direct grants to existing associations to

improve administrative capacity

Provide indirect grants through a national

intermediary group or through the relevant
government ministry (e.g., the Ministry of Local
Government)

Conduct management training directly or through

a government ministry

Conduct international training and study tours for

association leadership

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

49

VI. MONITORING AND

EVALUATION
Performance information, which includes both
performance monitoring and evaluative data, is
an essential tool for effective management of
decentralization and democratic local
governance programs. The reporting aspect of
monitoring and evaluation is, for example, a
particularly important tool for promoting
openness and citizen-customer awareness and
satisfaction.
Several USAID publications detail Agency
guidelines and procedures for performance
monitoring, its relationship to results reporting,
and recommended procedures. 3 Table6
presents a brief summary of monitoring lessons
drawn from USAID experience (Cook, VanSant,
Stewart, and Adrian, 1993).
TABLE 6: Performance Monitoring Dos
and Donts

Do
Encourage ownership and
champions at all
management levels.
Train agency staff not
accustomed to using
performance data.
Use a small number of
meaningful indicators to
keep the system simple.
Focus on the vital few.
Use presentations that
are understandable to
both internal and external
audiences.

Dont
Underestimate the need
for visible backing from
key agency and/or
mission officials.
Overwhelm managers;
each point of
management
responsibility should focus
on a few key-results
areas.
Create a data
bureaucracy; program
managers should be
involved in developing
data-gathering efforts.
Exclude any stakeholders
or partners.

See USAID (1998a), Handbook of Democracy and

Governance Program Indicators, which offers extensive
guidance on the use of scales and related tools.
3

A. Performance Monitoring
Performance management is not only a central
element of USAIDs results focus, but also a
key element of effective governance. Indeed,
assisting local governments with performance
management is a potential entry point in efforts
to help them become more responsive and
effective. Table7 summarizes ways in which
performance information can be used by
USAID, partners, and various local
stakeholders. In light of the potential benefits,
there is real value in USAID involving
counterparts and other stakeholders in the
design and implementation of performance
monitoring for governance activities.
B. Performance Evaluation
DG program managers should consider several
tenets that guide the formulation of a framework
for evaluating DG activities. The evaluation
framework must be user-centered, generating
information that stakeholders can use to make
decisions. Stakeholders may be donors, program
staff, program beneficiaries, citizens,
community groups, or local government
officials. The framework, therefore, should
emphasize participation to guarantee that all
stakeholders have a meaningful say in DG
program design and implementation.
The evaluation framework should be
comprehensive, covering implementation and
impact issues. Implementation problems, for
example, can be detected early on through
comprehensive data monitoring. Having the
flexibility to adjust to changing conditions
such as a change in national leadershipis
important. It is also appropriate to think of the
framework as an interactive rather than a linear,
step-by-step process. One must approach the
evaluation framework with the idea: Learn as
you go and adjust.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

51

As the evaluation process unfolds and is

adjusted, its outputs can contribute to
organizational learning. Analysts should seek
cost-effective methods in order to obtain the best
and most relevant information at the least cost.
Finally, the framework should be theory-based
and have a sound rationale for the claim that
attempted decentralization or local democratic
governance development efforts will (if properly
implemented) produce intended results.

USAID staffshould consider the following

questions:

As they proceed, the developers of the scope of

work for DG program evaluationusually

Which sector of activity will be the

focus of the evaluation? Policymakers
or local governments operate in multiple
sectorsfrom education to
environmental management to
transportationwith varying degrees of
success. Over time, emphasis among
domains may shift. The scope of work
should specify the domain or domains
that are its focus.

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

USAID

Contractors

Manage for and Manage for and

demonstrate
demonstrate
results
results

Local NGOs and

Other Partners

Citizens

Municipal Staff

Improve
Understand the
performance focus budget process
and constraints
of local
government

Understand how
actions contribute to
organizational
objectives

Use performance
reports as a focal
point for legislative
oversight

Focus on outcomes
rather than inputs

Support allocation
of resources to
programs that are
producing results

Track progress
on SO, IR, and
activity
indicators

Benchmark and
compare
performance
over time and
against targets

Provide basis for

communicating
results to
stakeholders and
citizens

Communicate
results to
USAID/W,
Congress,
partners, and
counterparts

Provide early
warning of
management or
performance
problems

Identify program
Mobilize financial Lobby for or
support for
against projects improvements to
increase customer
effective programs or programs
satisfaction
that directly
affect them

Provide
information for
the Results
Review and
Resources
Request (R4)

Report to USAID Account for

resources to
USAID or other
funding agencies

Hold managers Support learning

accountable for agendas (i.e.,
program results comparative
approaches,
lessons learned
from
implementation)

52

Elected Officials

Strengthen
information
management and
analysis capacity

Make more
targeted and
realistic
demands on
local resources

Compare
governments
performance
with similar
cities and towns

Enhance
communication
between units to
improve the servicedelivery process

Propose
adjustments to the
missions,
objectives, or
strategies of public
agencies
Gather information
about the needs
and priorities of
constituents

Manage complex
problems generated
by competing
interests of citizens

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

What are the key results to be

assessed? An evaluation should
measure progress toward achievement
of the objectives and targets established
in the activity design, as well as toward
related mission strategic objectives and
intermediate results.
Which perspectives, or constituency
points of view, will be considered? As
noted above, perspectives often differ
widely. The scope of work should
specify which perspectives, both internal
and external, will guide the analysis and
influence the sources of information.
Which level of analysis will be used?
The analysis can focus on an entire
sector or on specified agencys subunits,
depending on the government structure.
Effectiveness achieved at one level may
or may not correlate with effectiveness
at a broader or narrower level.
What timeframe will be employed?
The scope of work should specify
whether the evaluation will be
considering long-term effectiveness or
short-term productivity, keeping in mind
that the strategies for measuring each
may be incompatible.

What type of information will be

used? In considering which information
to use, one must remember that
documented information on DG
program activities and effects may differ
from perceptions. The availability and
credibility of each kind of information
will differ from case to case.

What will be the point of reference?

The assessment may be comparative (to
other similar government entities),
normative (to a theoretical ideal), goal-

centered (in relation to a stated target),

longitudinal (keyed to improvement
over time), or trait-related (relative to
predefined attributes).

How will the assessment results be

used, and by whom? The results of the
DG program evaluation should be
provided in a form that is timely,
relevant, and practical for the users.
User needs may affect not only the
length and detail of the analytical
presentation, but also the analysis itself.

Is the activity suited for evaluation?

Are the problems and anticipated
outcomes of the evaluation suitably
defined to be measurable? Is there a
clear management structure to act on the
evaluation?

What is the purpose(s) of the

evaluation? The objectives of the
evaluation exercise should be clear. Do
they include identifying lessons learned?
Is the goal to determine how to adjust
ongoing activities, for example, or how
they can be replicated in other parts of
the host country?

C. Performance Indicators
Successful performance monitoring and
evaluation require clearly articulated results
against which performance will be assessed.
Results provide a basis for collecting data on the
need for a service, the inputs to that service, the
service outputs, and the results. Indicators of
these results can be used to measure important
dynamics such as the quality of governance or
effectiveness of decentralization.
In their performance monitoring plans, USAID
Missions must define in detail the performance
measures they will track to monitor the strategic
objectives and intermediate results, together with

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

53

information on the source, method, and schedule

of data collection.
Good indicators of results are timely and
relevant and can be measured with quality data
at reasonable cost. They also are understandable
to the program stakeholders who will use the
performance information in decision-making or
program assessment. As such, they must fit a
specific objective, program, and country setting.
Useful and effective performance measures are
objective to ensure they are interpreted the same
way by different people. The most important
criterion is that there is effective demand for the
information. The quality of supply-driven data is
irrelevant; the quality of demand-driven data is
crucial.
Sample performance measures are provided in
Table8; they are organized around the three key
dynamics of decentralization and democratic
local governance. While not comprehensive, the
list illustrates the kind of measures that can be
used to assess impact. The sampling is drawn
from existing USAID projects, experience of the
authors, and the Handbook of Democracy and
Government Program Indicators, which
provides a wealth of sample indicators with
annotations regarding their applicability, data
collection methods, and other interpretive ideas.
(See ordering information back inside cover.)
USAID program managers can use these
samples as a starting point for establishing a
performance monitoring and evaluation system
specific to the host country and to a given DG
program.
D. Setting Targets and Measuring Results
The complex and dynamic nature of
decentralization and democratic local
governance makes target-setting particularly
difficult. The amount of change to be expected
from a given level of activity must be defined as
part of the strategic goal for which assistance is

54

being provided. A poorly articulated goal makes

evaluating decentralization and democratic local
governance difficult. Quantitative indicators
often either do not reveal much or push
measurement back to more easily counted
outputs rather than to real results. One way to
deal with this problem is to establish a
descriptive scale that defines stages of progress
toward an objective. This idea is often put to use
for policy indices that track steps toward the
passage and implementation of a specific policy
reform. Scales also have been used to track
institutional progress or growth in capacity.
Scales can be especially appropriate for such
dynamics as local government transparency,
central government devolution of power,
measures of capacity, or level of citizen
participation in decision-making. For example,
USAIDs Office of Environment and Urban
Programs uses four stages or levels to describe
the expected steps that occur along a continuum
to achieve a given result. This is helpful for
monitoring the status of progress, even though it
does not by itself indicate the complex factors
that contribute to achieving the results. As
examples, stages for three indicators are
presented in Table9.
A scale normally presents a range of ratings
from low to high or the equivalent on some
attribute relevant to what is being measured (for
example, citizen confidence in local
government). The stages can also be defined as
in Table 10 rather than with a numerical rating.
A scale enables the transformation of complex
human judgments into numbers that can be
combined, averaged, and otherwise processed. It
permits quantitative analysis of answers that
are derived initially from ratings or assessments.
A key element in an effective scale is that, at any
given moment, different persons would score the
assessment the same way. This is essential if
comparative measurements or measurements
over time are to have meaning. For this purpose,

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

it is useful to define carefully what each point on

the scale means rather than leaving it purely to
the subjective judgment of the rater. Using the
same rater(s) over time or averaging the scores
of several raters are other ways to improve the
reliability of this tool.
An example of an overall performance
management/evaluation framework for the
Municipal Finance and Management project in
the New Independent States (NIS) is also
provided in Table10. This project involved a
range of interventions to achieve four primary
results: decentralized local government finance
and management capacity, local government
transparency and accountability, improvement in
the lives of citizens, and sustainability. Table10
summarizes intermediate results and indicators
used in these four categories. The project is a
good example of a performance monitoring
system tied to the key dynamics of
decentralization and democratic local
governance discussed in this handbook.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

55

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 protected
legal 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 infrastructure
constructed 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 by
gender and ethnicity) in local elections
Percentage of executives, administrators, candidates, and elected officials who are women or minorities

56

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

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 (disaggregated
by 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

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

57

TABLE 9: Sample Target Scale4

Sample National Enabling Environment Indicator: Degree of independence municipalities and their
citizens have to make investment decisions.
Stage 1
Investment decisions are dictated, directed, or
carried out by central government.
Stage 2
Central government recognizes need to grant
autonomy to localities. Central government has
expanded level of consultation with local government and allows some degree of local government
decision-making.

Stage 3
Local governments exercise significant autonomy
in investment decisions. Commitment by central
governments to expand autonomy is incorporated
into national policy.
Stage 4
Local governments act autonomously in making
investment decisions with support from central
government consistent with national policy.

Sample Democratic Local Governance Indicator: Extent to which women and disenfranchised
groups are represented in local governments and other decision-making bodies.
Stage 1
No women or disenfranchised groups are represented in local government.

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

Stage 2
NGOs or other numbers of the public have indicated that women or disenfranchised groups are
under-represented in local government.

Stage 4
The percentage of women or disenfranchised
groups in local government positions and other
decision-making bodies has increased and continues to grow.

Sample Local Government Capacity Indicator: Degree to which public budget and decision-making
processes are effectively carried out.
Stage 1
No public meetings or printed materials on budget
are available.
Stage 2
Budget is properly prepared and printed in newspapers or available at local or central government
ministry offices.

Stage 3
City council includes one citizen at-large seat or
other formal community representation mechanism
at annual budget hearings.
Stage 4
Citizen initiatives or positions are gathered and
incorporated into budget documents and the
planning and approval process.

This scale is adapted from the 1998 Results Framework, an operational document of the Office of Environment
and Urban Programs of the USAIDs Global Environment Center.
4

58

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

TABLE 10: Municipal Finance and Management in the New Independent States
Performance Monitoring
Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.

Strengthen accountability and control by keeping track of results compared with plans and objectives
Improve decision-making by clarifying information on objectives, alternatives, and consequences
Enhance performance by improving implementation and methods
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

Indicators/Measurement

1.1 Increased use of good management and finance

practices and systems for local decision-making

1.2 Improved local government policies, regulations,

and procedures

Reviews of current policy conducted

Legislative changes identified
Increased local control of and responsibility for
finance and management

1.3 Greater transaction processing and information

systems capacity

Information system plan in place

Organizational framework established for
management information systems
Systems up and running
Increased use of management information to guide
decisions

1.4 Organizational structures and approaches better

suited for democratic local governance in a freemarket economic system

Adoption of new approaches and practices adapted

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

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 participation
in budgeting and municipal decision-making

Budgets published and available to public

Open budget processes (public hearings)
Fully auditable financial records
Competitive bidding processes used

2.2 Increased public influence on municipal service

outcomes

Referenda on major issues

Open media coverage of local government issues

2.3 Clearly defined lines of authority and

responsibility for public officials

Open publication of service data and results

Public organizational charts

2.4 Performance monitoring conducted

Performance monitoring systems in place

Performance monitoring information available to
public

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

59

TABLE 10 (continued)
Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.

Strengthen accountability and control by keeping track of results compared with plans and objectives
Improve decision-making by clarifying information on objectives, alternatives, and consequences
Enhance performance by improving implementation and methods
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

Intermediate Results
3.1 Improved public service delivery

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

3.2 Improved economic status of city/municipality

Economic development plans developed and

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

Result 4: Sustainability
4.1 Project innovations incorporated into local
government organizational structure, legal
framework, practices, and budget

Documented new procedures

Budget reform
Management and organizational innovations

4.2 Recurrent maintenance and support costs of

automated data processing (ADP) and other
systems incorporated in local government
budgets

Operations and maintenance of ADP systems

covered in local government budgets

4.3 Training institutionalized, and municipal finance

and management training available in local
government or in-country institutions

Links to local institutions established

Programs of management training in place
Public management and operations training
available

Process Issues
1. Make defining of standards and indicators a collaborative effort with local government counterparts
2. Place identification of benchmark status in each city on early agenda of field teams working with
counterparts
3. Build ownership and capacity among municipal counterparts around defining and implementing
monitoring agenda
4. Involve league of cities in baseline data collection and analysis (benchmarking) and in reporting of
progress
60

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

VII. LESSONS LEARNED

Decentralization experience in countries around
the world and the experience of USAID and
other donors with programming activities
provide a wealth of important lessons that can
guide future efforts. The following is a listby
no means an exclusive listof general
programming lessons we have learned:

Take advantage of and encourage

political will. Capitalize on the existing
political will for reform. Take advantage
of a positive climate as rapidly as
possible. Since political winds can shift
with little lead time, one may soon face
a rising wall of opposition. The degree
and type of local governance
programming will often be determined
largely by the political will of the host
country. Efforts to sustain political will
(e.g., lobbying national leaders and
ministry officials) should be continual.

Show results. Citizens trust in local

government and their willingness to pay
for what it does can be enhanced
through visible, fast-yielding, priority
investments in the community. Concrete
results help establish the local
governments legitimacy. This fact
should not, however, be an invitation for
politicized investment planning.

Emphasize revenue generation. Local

government income generation should
be a priority. Increased financial
autonomyto assess taxes or fees and
collect themallows local officials to
address community needs with greater
effectiveness. Activities should include
emphasis on the responsive and
responsible expenditure of all revenue
received.

Showing Results through

Communication in Bulgaria
As one of the pilot cities in USAID/Bulgarias
Local Government Initiative, the municipality of
Stara Zagora has taken a comprehensive
approach to informing citizens and involving
them in choices related to downtown
development, the annual budget process, and
conversion to natural gas for heating. As part of
its program, the city has established a city hall
public information and press office. The city
relies increasingly on press releases, weekly
news conferences, publication of the council
agenda, citizen surveys, televised public
hearings with viewer call-in features, and other
live fora to share information.
Faced with public confusion, mistrust, and some
resistance to a natural gas conversion project,
the city and a USAID-sponsored assistance
team worked with NGOs, business
representatives, and others to develop a
communication and citizen-involvement strategy
to respond to community concerns, which
included traffic disruption and inconvenient street
cuts, and to involve them in the project.
Tactics included publication and wide distribution
of frequently asked questions, a public debate by
the local high school debate team on the merits
of natural gas, and a citizen-oriented ribboncutting ceremony celebrating conversion of the
first public facility (a kindergarten). With USAID
technical support, the municipality hosted
training workshops on practices in local
government regulatory affairs, rate setting, and
public safety and natural gas. The press
participated in news briefings associated with
each workshop.
Results: An independent citizen survey
conducted four months after the launch of the
information and involvement campaign revealed
Stara Zagora citizens considered the USAIDsupported conversion of municipal facilities to
natural gas the number one community
accomplishment of the year. Conversion of
targeted public building and related energy
efficiency and regulatory efforts continued with
news media and community support.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

61

Building Momentum: The Honduran

Association of Municipalities (AHMON)

Build local government momentum.

Emergence of a local government
movement is often critical to long-term
success. Programming should help
create or sustain the momentum. The
enactment of decentralization legislation
and attendant national debate often
provide or renew the impetus for
sustained reform. Local government
associations can be powerful advocates
for change at the national level, and they
can provide valuable support to local
government institutions.

Help inform the public. Work with the

local news media to develop and
conduct public education strategies (e.g.,
campaigns and informational
workshops) to raise awareness of reform
and its potential benefits. Promote
understanding and support for
decentralization and local governance.

Work at as many governmental levels

as possible. Resource limitations are
always a concern, but programming
should help build a favorable enabling
environment at the national level while

One of the most notable successes of USAID/

Honduras Municipal Development project has
been the strengthening of the Honduran Association of Municipalities (AHMON). A private
association of mayors, AHMON promotes
collaboration among municipalities, analyzes
issues affecting local governments, and lobbies
for municipal autonomy at the national level.
Founded in 1962, but inactive for three decades,
AHMON emerged in the early 1990s as the
single most effective organization to press for full
implementation of the Municipal Reform Law.
Key to AHMONs new vitality as a national
organization was the management training and
funding of USAIDs municipal project. Now
organized into a general assembly of mayors
with a board of directors, AHMON has sought to
become self-sufficient by collecting a percentage
of the national revenues the central government
transfers to member municipalities. AHMONs
lobbying influence in the Honduran Congress is
growing.
The association has used civic education and
media exposure to increase public support for
the continued autonomy of municipalities and to
encourage citizens to vote for the most qualified
candidates, as opposed to party slates. AHMON
has a program of national radio, and mayors
publicize their development projects on local
stations. The organization has become so well
known that indigenous minorities have requested
its assistance. The public support it receives has
been important in defending local governance
against the rear-guard actions of central agencies attempting to recentralize control.
AHMON continues to be the strongest and most
independent advocate for decentralization and
municipal development in Central America. As a
leader of the national municipal movement,
AHMON is expected to continue to play an
important role in the countrys democratic
development.
Source: Lippman and Pranke (1998) and
mission reporting.
62

Informing Citizens through Community

Involvement in Ecuador and Tunisia
Community involvement in the management of
environmental pollution in Ecuador and Tunisia
began with training that stressed communication,
dialogue, problem analysis, and development of
problem-solving skills to create effective teams
of municipal technical staff, NGOs, and
community representatives.
Stakeholders worked in partnership to identify
and address environmental health risks from
cholera to waste management. Since exchange
of information was built into the approach, public
awareness and understanding increased as
health results were achieved.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

simultaneously working with local

officials to take advantage of new
developments. Working at all levels
produces the best results.

Promote accountability. Support

mechanisms that directly promote
participatory and accountable
government and build partnerships
between local government and other
sectors (e.g., regular public meetings
with CSOs, formal grievance
procedures, hearings on major issues,
participatory planning and budgeting,
and opinion surveys).
Do not assume that building on the best
is always best. To help ensure success,
USAID and other donors often target the
most promising local sites for assistance.
This strategy heightens the chances that
the seeds of reform will grow only in
fertile spots. It offers little to marginal or
less progressive communities. Since the

Financial Accountability in Russia

The Municipal Finance and Management project

in Russia worked directly with eight city
governments to help them restructure and learn
modern financial management practices that
emphasize accountability to citizens for
government performance. Budgets were
published and debated in public hearings, while
citizens provided input into proposed
expenditure and revenue policy.

Citizen-public Dialogue, West Africa

In West Africa, where a crisis of confidence in

public institutions pervades, training sessions
were successfully conducted to allow business
interests and citizens to hold official dialogue
with locally elected officials and administrative
staff. A key issue was managing and financing
public facilities, such as public markets,
slaughterhouses, and transport facilities.

The Slow Pace of Change in Paraguay

Paraguay is emerging from a long history of
oppression and a tradition of caudillo leadership
(strong one-person rule). For almost 50 years,
the political and military dictatorship dominated
every aspect of life through the centralized
government. Since the early 1990s, the country
has struggled to create a multiparty democratic
system. In the past five years, international
donors have begun to support decentralization
and local government initiatives, which have
faced a variety of deep-seated institutional
obstacles as well.
Paraguays decentralization and democratic local
governance programming offers an interesting
comparison of two distinct activities. Both
activities also demonstrate the slow pace of
reform and change found in many countries.
Public Health: A new health law in 1997, which
was then followed by administrative regulations,
pointed to a sectoral entry point for
decentralization. But administrative, financial,
and political authorities were never substantially
devolved to the local health councils that the law
created. Political will in the ministry dissolved,
foreshadowed by national events. The only
advocates for municipal-managed health
clinicslocal government officialslack
sufficient political power and local resources to
break the impasse. The organization of municipal
interests is only now effectively beginning.
Community Development: The second
program, which used the strategic planning
model with active citizen, neighborhood, and
municipal participation, demonstrates the
catalytic power of grassroots organization.
Introduced to the planning ideas, the pilot
communities became energized; local leadership
emerged; local resources were mobilized; and
civic improvements were completed. Although
the project seeks to fundamentally change the
relationship between the citizens and their local
officials, the technical assistance is very
intensive, the level of sustainability has not been
tested, and much remains to be done.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

63

most promising sites typically are

exceptional cases, programming results
are less likely to serve as models for the
rest of the country.

Realize that change is slow.

Decentralization and development of
local governance are lengthy processes
of incremental institutional change.
Institutional reform requires not only
legal reform and implementation, but
also the emergence of a new political
culture. This can take many years and
measuring short-term results is
extremely difficult. Yet, thoughtful
design of sensitive indicators can

register change and provide incentives

for continued work.

Build on prior assistance activities. An

early series of activities should be
viewed as a building block for a larger
future program. One activity can build
on the next, or two activities can work in
tandem for greater impact. A program
may begin by promoting legal reform to
improve the enabling environment, and,
once the national reforms are in place, it
may turn to assisting a select group of
jurisdictions. Later, for long-term
sustainability, local government or
professional association development
may be the focus of activities.

Filipino GOLD: Building on Previous Program Activities

The Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) project follows a long-standing tradition of USAID support
for decentralization in the Philippines, most recently through the Local Development and Assistance
program (LDAP) and Decentralized Shelter and Urban Development (DSUD) project. LDAP and DSUD
activities focused on policy, or the passage of the proposed Local Government Code. Following the codes
enactmentwith the key reforms in placethe mission moved to support the new set of policies through
the 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, GOLD
focuses on democratic local governance. Based on previous experience and an extensive consultative
process during the design phase, USAID/Philippines saw GOLD as an intensive effort to demonstrate that
democracy works and that transparent decision-making results in more unified, legitimate, and equitable
policies and programs. The mission wanted to show that government can become more responsive to
peoples expressed needs and must be held accountable for its performance.
GOLD also shifted the focus from national policy reform to assisting local governments, leagues of
governments, and local community organizations in coming together to address common municipal
problems, 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 as
representatives from leagues of governments and NGOs.
GOLD represents an important learning laboratory for the broader USAID emphasis on democratic local
governance. Donors have a long history of supporting administrative and financial decentralization in the
Philippines. The USAID/Philippines programs value is that it moves beyond local government
administration and service delivery concerns to support institutions and structures that enable individuals
to decide and do things for themselves. Activities are based on treating people not as beneficiaries in the
traditional sense, but as citizen stakeholders.
Source: VanSant, Blair, Razon-Abad, and Amani (1998)

64

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

VIII. PROGRAMMING
ISSUES

National quality standards for public

services. Decentralization should not
allow the weakening of national control
over quality standards in education,
health, and other key service areas.
Enhanced local autonomy should not
give rise to a multitude of standards that
can seriously undermine the quality of
life across the country. Does
decentralization necessarily lead to this
situation and, if so, how should donors
react?

Local authoritarianism. Does

decentralization give traditionally
ensconced local bosses a freer rein to
control public resources and dominate
local political life? Where is the
democracy in instances where
democratic tradition is weak or
nonexistent? Depending on traditions or
the nature of government at the national
level, the new, decentralized local
context may be a relative improvement.
The opportunity for change may be
greater as local officials and citizens
gain awareness of the new local system
and how it should ideally operate.

Scaling-up. How do local governance

innovations spread from one locality to
another? What makes one local
government adopt the practices of
another, and how can they be promoted
nationwide? USAID and other donors
often select a series of pilot jurisdictions
in which to work. This approach often
assumes a demonstration effect based on
the premise that successful practice in
the pilots will be adopted in manyif
not allof the countrys communities.
Evidence suggests this transfer of ideas
rarely occurs without some external
impetus. Is the premise on which it is
based valid? What are the lessons to be
drawn from those instances in which

The following is a series of issues that are

important to any discussion of decentralization
and local democracy and that consistently arise
when USAID considers country programming in
this area. We give them some consideration here
with the hope they will broaden understanding,
provide impetus to the continuing debate, and
assist in the improvement of program activities
in the future.

Promoting decentralization. Should

decentralization always be promoted?
As outlined below, there are a number
of concerns about the potential impact of
decentralization. Democratic theory tells
us that decentralized government will
improve democracy. Development
experience at times provides a less
favorable view. As explained at the
outset of this handbook, however, we
are in many ways in a new era for
decentralization throughout much of the
world. Is the jury still out?

Inequity. A strong case can be made

that granting greater autonomy to local
jurisdictions, and therefore to donor
efforts, can exacerbate territorial
inequality. Wealthy local governments
generally have more resources at their
disposal and access to better educated
personnel than do poor ones. In
providing services and improving the
quality of life for residents, they can use
these advantages to pull much further
ahead of less-advantaged counterparts.
Low-income areas, meanwhile, face
many disadvantages, from minimal
resources, to lack of investment
opportunities, to a relatively lesseducated population, and to greater
social and infrastructure needs.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

65

replication reportedly has occurred?

Does improved national democracy
result? Can better planning during the
pilot phase help overcome this problem?

National cohesion. Decentralization is a

recipe, some argue, for the erosion of
territorial sovereignty. According
greater authority to local governments
can give rise to demands for secession
or independence, particularly in
culturally diverse or geographically
extended countries. On the other hand,
others argue, allowing distant regions
greater freedom to act on their own
affairs may lessen historical demands
for separation.

Local elections. Should local elections

be required for USAID to begin
programming activities in
decentralization and the development of
democratic local governance? Elections
are ultimately essential to the emergence
of democratic governance. The absence
of local elections does not, however,
prevent USAID from becoming
involved at the local level because such
involvement may lay the groundwork
for a larger programming DG effort
once elections are convened.

66

Cross-sectoral programming.
Increasing numbers of USAID Missions
appear to be addressing democratic local
governance from a sectoral vantage
point. Missions are pursuing local
sectoral programming and local
government democratic process
togethercombining DG resources with
resources in areas such as health care,
education, and water and sanitation.
There seems to be an increasing
recognition of the practical value of
supporting improved, more
democratically operated local service

delivery. Is this a significant trend in

programming? Are the results better, as
one might expect, than we find when
there is a separation of sectoral and
democracy work?

Moving from local to national

democracy. What is the link between
building democratic local governance
and the nations democracy as a whole?
As discussed above, decentralization is a
direct tool for democracy-building
through the development of democratic
local governance. Decentralization, for
example, can give rise to local political
movements or parties that force the
traditional political system to open up
and become more pluralistic. Success at
the local level can, in some situations,
generate public pressure on the national
government to accord greater local
autonomy. This local-national link must
be considered because it can be critical
to programming, especially when
USAID is working where local
government officials are not elected.

This handbook illustrates the programming

advances that have been made during USAIDs
long experience with decentralization and
democratic local governance programming. As
this section demonstrates, however, maximizing
the impact of program activities on the
development of democracy and improved
governance demands greater understanding in a
variety of areas. In the coming months and
years, in its effort to provide technical leadership
for the Agency, the Center will be taking on
many of these and other questions as they
emerge. Ultimately, after all, successful
programming is a continual learning process.

Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook

REFERENCES
Ayee, Joseph. 1987. The Adjustment of Central Bodies to Decentralization: The Case of Ghanaian
Bureaucracy. Africa Studies Review 40(2): 37-58.
Bidus, Mark. 1995 (August). A Review of Decentralization and Municipal Development Initiatives and
Their 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 Franois 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 Development
Information and Evaluation.
Bland, Gary. August 1999. Decentralization and Local Electoral Systems: Making Choices for
Democratic 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 the
State. 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 Measurement
Lessons 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 (Advance
Copy), 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 to
Promoting Good Governance. Center for International Development Staff Working Paper. Research
Triangle Park, NC: RTI.

Jutkowitz, Joel M., Russell Stout, and Hal Lippman. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in the
Philippines: 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 in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Concepts and Issues. Report prepared under the USAID project Resources for the
Awareness of Population Impacts on Development (RAPID IV). Washington, DC: The Futures Group
and Research Triangle Institute.
Landau, Martin, Ledevina Carna, Schutra Bhahta, and James Wunsch. 1980. The Provincial Development
Assistance 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: Yale
University Press.
Linz, Alfred, and Juan Steppan. 1996. Democratic Consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Lippman, Hal and Harry Blair. 1997. Democratic Local Governance in Ukraine. CDIE Impact
Evaluation. 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 Impact
Evaluation. Arlington, Virginia: USAID.
Manor, James. 1997. The Political Economy of Decentralization. August 1 draft. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
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, Advisory
Council Futures Process.
Osborn, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Service. New York: Penguin.
Ottoemoeller, Dan. 1999. Decentralization: The Lessons from the Local Councils of Uganda. In Dele
Olowu and James Wunsch (eds.), Consolidating Democracy in Africa: The Challenge of Creating
Polycentric Structures Amidst Scarcity.
Robison, Julie Aberg, and C. Stark Biddle. 1998. Strengthening Local Governance in Uganda: A
Program Design in Support of Democratic Decentralization. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research
Triangle Institute.
Rondinelli, Dennis, John Nellis, and G. Shabbir Cheema. 1984. Decentralization in Developing
Countries: 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 Old
Idea. World Development 18(1): 61-73.
USAID. 1997a. Municipal Bond Tax Exemption. Finance Working Papers. Washington, DC: Office of
Environment 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 for
Environment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. September 22-23.
USAID. 1997c. Expanding Municipal Finance in Zimbabwe: Recommendations for Addressing Current
Constraints. 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: Center
for 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 6
draft. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and Urban Programs, Center for Environment, Bureau for
Global Programs, Field Support, and Research.
USAID. 1998e. Municipal Bond Market Development in Developing Countries: The Experience of the
U.S. Agency for International Development. Washington, DC: Office of Environment and Urban
Programs, Center for Environment, Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research. April.
USAID. 1999a. A Handbook on Fighting Corruption. Washington, DC: USAID, Center for Democracy
and Governance. February.
USAID. 1999b. The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach. Washington, DC: Center for
Democracy 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 Democracy
and 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 Triangle
Institute.
Villadsen, Soren, and Francis Lubanga. 1996. Democratic Decentralization in Uganda: A New Approach
to Local Governance. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers Ltd.

Willis, Eliza, Christopher da C.B. Garman, and Stephan Haggard. 1999. The Politics of Decentralization
in 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 in
Southern 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 Public
Administration and Development, April 12, 1999. New York and Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
WEB SITES
USAIDs Center for Democracy and Governance internal web site: inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/
USAIDs external democracy and governance web site: www.usaid.gov/democracy/
USAIDs Office of Environment and Urban Programs in the Environment Center (intranet and internet):
www.genv.org/mcw and www.makingcitieswork.org
USAIDs Africa Regional Dialogue on Decentralization: www.usaid.gov/leland
USAIDs Local Government Center for Europe and Eurasia: www.usaid.gov/regions/
ee/local_gov/

USAIDs Local Government Information Network in the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia:

www.logincee.org

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

USAIDs Decentralization Network on Water and Wastewater in Central American and the Caribbean:
www.ehproject.org
USAIDs 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, supported 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

OTHER TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS FROM

THE OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE
PN-ACB-895
Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners Guide
PN-ACM-001
Case Tracking and Management Guide
PN-ACC-887
Civil-military Relations: USAIDs Role
PN-ACH-305
Conducting a DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy Development
PN-ACH-300
Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook
PN-ACD-395
Democracy and Governance: A Conceptual Framework
PN-ACC-390
Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators
PN-ACE-070
A Handbook on Fighting Corruption
PN-ACF-631
Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral Processes
PN-ACE-630
The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach
PN-ACF-632
USAID Handbook on Legislative Strengthening
PN-ACE-500
USAID 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 this
page and on the cover of this publication).

USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may order documents at no charge.

Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries may 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]

PN-ACH-300

Center for Democracy and Governance

Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research
U.S. Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523-3100
Tel: (202) 712-1892
Fax: (202) 216-3232
Internet: http://www.usaid.gov/democracy/
Intranet: http:/inside.usaid.gov/G/DG/