Perceptions On Impacts of Decentralization On Local Governance in Ethiopia: Insights From DLDP Implementation in Guraghe Zone and Its Districts
Perceptions On Impacts of Decentralization On Local Governance in Ethiopia: Insights From DLDP Implementation in Guraghe Zone and Its Districts
Perceptions On Impacts of Decentralization On Local Governance in Ethiopia: Insights From DLDP Implementation in Guraghe Zone and Its Districts
org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Abstract
The rationale for the District level decentralization in Ethiopia has been reducing central and regional
government control, increasing community and civil society participation, making government bodies more
accountable, responsive and transparent to the constituents at the ground. This article explores and discusses how
district level decentralization affected its potential for effective local public governance in Guraghe Zone and its
Districts from local government bodies’ view. The study employed concurrent mixed methodes research design.
The,data were collected through survey questionnaires,focus group discussions, and key informant interviews,
simultaneosly. The Guraghe zone’s districts were taken purposively. The data were integrated with analysis and
interpretation of the results. The researcher employs cross tabulations, percentages, and graphs to discuss and
analyze the data. The results show that that the decentralization affects accountability, responsiveness and
transparency of local governments to the public positively and negatively in the study area. While, the finding
also revealed that effectiveness decentralization reform on local governance effectiveness has been constrained
due to misuses of transferred public resources. Furthermore, the prevailing ethnic based political patrons and
kinship networks are installing and implementing government policies and projects for their own interest than
the ordinary citizen. The findings also revealed that local administrators are appointed and removed from their
position without constituents’ knowledge. Even though both FDRE Constitution and SNNPRS Constitution
clearly publicized how lower level government units are accountable to the higher government tiers, both fail
state on how upper level tiers of government units are being accountable to the lower level government units.
This might affect the down ward accountability of governance actors to their constituents. Obviously, this
determines effectiveness of local governance.
Keywords: decentralization, local public governance, accountability, responsiveness, transparency
1 Introduction
The last three decades has publicized a flux in government power and public resources control insights and
thinking. The traditional government roles, functions and structures were questioned in terms of governance
insights and its centralized nature (World Bank, 2006). The emerging governance thinking ensured that
government reform remains a central concern of most countries in world. Consequently, the sole dominance of
government overall political and legal decision -making have been contested since 1980s (Chema and Rondilli,
2007). The central government failures remain an emerging central concern. Majority of these failures had been
associated with centralized decision-making, governance of resources, empowerments of government units and
community, emerging self-governance quests of local ethnic based masters, and among others. Because of
overall dissatisfaction with government –citizen relations, central government inefficiency and ineffectiveness,
traditional bureaucratic incompetence, unresponsive centralized public policy making and implementation at
grassroots, unaccountable government bodies to the public, and other factors have inspired government reforms
in both developed and developing countries(Faquet 2004, Treisman 2007, World Bank 2010, Pollitt and
Bouckaert, 2011). Ethiopia is no exception to this instance.
Decentralization in Ethiopia, as a local governance and capacity building strategy, has been practiced
since 1991. Ethiopian Federal Government is exceptional in identified Ethnic based decentralized government
systems in the World, which is considered to being an ongoing new and open to change than any other
decentralized models. The proponents of ethnic based decentralization in Ethiopia underline that decentralization
81
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
is a strategy empowering, participating and consulting ordinary citizens and communities in the process of local
public decision- making. Their assumption is that ethnic based local governance is a superior means to achieve
government ‘accountability, responsiveness, transparency, among others good governance principles’ in the process of
using transferred power and resource for development, which as a result would contribute to the ‘macro-economic
stabilization and fair resource distribution’ in the process of Ethiop’s transformation. However, opponents of the
model argue that ethnic based decentralization in the long-term would weaken community development, social
cohesion and unity; finally, it would lead to ethnic tension, conflict and further fragmentation. They also argue
that it finally draws the country to poor governance particularly at the grass roots.
The need for decentralized governance is solving societal problems of citizen involvement in decision-
making. However, effectiveness of transferring central government power and resources to local ethnic units
without effective implementation of good governance principles in the implementation of development programs
is dismal for ordinary citizens (Treisman, 2007). Decentralized ethnic based local governance approach to
contemporary Ethiopia is a constitutional provision that aims to empower Ethnic based local government
and local community for ‘peace, stability and development. It also aims to improve local governance actors’
accountability, responsiveness, and transparency in the use of devolved power and public resources for
development in grass roots. The concern has been to use scarce economic and public resources without
corruption (World Bank, 2013, PSCAP Report, 2008). This endless rhetoric of politicians in the current ruling
party (EPRDF) of the country, at each tiers of the government has become a sole policy of government reforms.
The new beginning of Ethiopian development and the deadlock for poverty and poor local governance in the
country were some of the expected results of the reforms particularly decentralization.
However, the mismatch between population growths and public service facilities create a contest on
local governance in Guraghe zone (Guraghelima, 2011). This shows that DLDP practices have been criticized for
not achieving its targets of Guraghe Zone and its Districts. Different scholars claimed that major causes for
ineffectiveness of decentralization are divergence between resources transferred to subnational governments and
assigned functions to them (Meheret, 2007). As Gaticia (nd) argued such failures are not necessarily inherent of
political systems where the human, social, economic and political rights are constitutionally protected and
regular elections undertaken for locally elected officials as of Ethiopia.
The emerging contest on decentralized public governance may be a ‘patron-client relations’ (ibid). As
Tsegaye (2006), argued the existing situation in Guraghe symbolized with the emerging ethnic based political
patronage and elite’s relation. However, in Guraghe Zone and its Districts, empirical studies on local public
governance problems of providing public services to all of its constituents lack conclusive insights to explain the
topic in governance perspective. The article aims to examine whether the expectations of DLDP in Ethiopia meet
their target or not, at the study area. It explores and discusses decentralization reform impacts on local
governance features of government accountability, responsiveness, transparency, Community participation, and
among others in DLDP implementation of Guraghe Zone, Ethiopia
Therefore, the problem to be addressed in this article is decentralization impacts on local governance of
Guraghe Zone and its Districts, Ethiopia.
In addition, the article intends to answer the following questions. First, how are patterns of
decentralization reforms in Ethiopia emerging from 1990s? Second, how do these reforms affect local
governance of Guraghe Zone and its Districts? Third, how might ethnic based decentralized self-governance be
governed?
82
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
conflicts and to implement public choices. Consequentially, they are formed to provide different government
services at the local level with specifically demarcated geographic areas. In most cases, their formation is ethnic
based. It aims to create ethnic based local self-government. The decentralized ethnic based local self-government
in Ethiopia inspires on protecting ethnic rights for self-government, ensuring the provision of public goods and
services reflect the preferences and priorities of citizens at least theoretically (Zemelak, 2011; Tsegaye, 2006).
Local governance is a broader concept than local government. It refers to a flexible model of local
public decision-making based on citizens’ demand, participation and consultation at different level of
government (Treisman, 2007). It connotes interaction between local actors(elected and appointed officials,
elected representatives, civil servants, private sectors, and other civil society organizations) in the formulation
and execution of collective action at the local level (John, 2001). It emphasizes the need on proper mechanisms
for citizen-citizen and citizen-state interactions. Operationally in this study, local governance is a dynamic
engagement and administration of Zonal and Districts development within ethnically defined territory.
In this changing institutional context, local good governance features of accountability, responsiveness,
transparency, participation, and among other governance networks have recognized in local development fields.
It assumed that decentralization has impacts on local governance for development by affecting the
aforementioned good governance features.
2.1.2 Decentralization and Empowerment concepts
Decentralization was defined as “a process of government reform composed of a set of public policies that
transfer responsibilities, resources, or authorities from higher to lower levels of government units in the context
of a specific type of state” ( Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007). This definition did not include the modes of self-
governance such as privatization, community participation and empowerment. It also refers to a process of
devolving political, fiscal, and administrative powers or responsibilities, authorities, and resources from central
governments to sub national units of locally elected governments for effective local public governance and
public service provision (Ahmad, et al., 2006, IEG, 2008). Decentralization is a process that intends to improve
local public governance features, community participation in local issues, and accountability of public policy
makers as well as implementers to citizens.
It is actually an administrative reform, which shifts central monopoly power to participatory localized
units (Mullins 2004). Here, it expected to empower the local elected and appointed officials, service providers,
elected representatives and citizens. In this study, empowerment means a process of shift from being
powerlessness in decision-making to a position of sharing control of the collective actions in the context. This
empowerment notion needs to ascertain the gap the theoretical expectations of capacity to control and the actual
ability to control at the grassroots. Of course, such a reform is likely promoting accountability, responsiveness,
and transparency to the public, and citizen’s participation in local governance. On the other hand, it emphasizes
the share between local and central government oversights and planning as the power and resources. In other
words, effective decentralized public governance needs powerful upper tiers to provide an effective enabling
environment (Mullins 2004, Callahan 2007).
2.1.2.1 Democratic Theory of Decentralization and Citizen’s Participation
Democratic theory decentralization claims to make citizen’s participation as a bridge for empowerment to
improved governance (Manor, 2011). It requests citizens to actively participate in and consulted with deliberative
government programs and projects affecting their life at the grassroots. It emphasizes both direct and indirect
citizen participation in deliberative public decision-making “to ensure that government entities do what is right,
performs/performed as expected, and act in the best interest of the public” (Callahan, 2007). Critics from the
proponents of ‘representative democracy and indirect participation’ asserted that legitimate elect representatives
are preferred to act on behalf of their constituents (ibid).
Consequentially, the conceptualizations of citizen’s participation in local government decision-making
come across with disagreement on whether the decision-making role of citizens as direct or indirect is applicable
(Callahan, 2007). However, many scholars agree that participation is mandatory to improve government
performance to the public.
A critical question is to what extent the administration of a representative government can actively
and meaningfully involves citizens in public sector decision-making at lowest possible level. In addition, the
proponents of direct and active participation argued that most national government and local government failures
are associated with lack of active and direct citizen participation in decisions at grassroots. As Altmann, et al.
(2000) argued the main rational for decentralization is associated with the principle of subsidiary. This principle
calls for making-public decisions at the grassroots: community to different tiers Kebel, District, Zonal, Regional
State or National Government. This study tries to critically assess whether the principle of subsidiary has been
practiced in the implementation DLDP in Guraghe Zone and its Districts, Ethiopia. Operationally, the level of
citizen’s participation refers to the extent to which direct community involvement in local public policy makings
and implementation in general and public services provision in particular. The community may participate in the
implementation of specific projects by contributing to the design, construction and/or maintenance of services
83
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
84
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
features of government (Pollitt, 2005; Kimenyi and Meagher, 2004; Manor, 2011). This discussion on
decentralized government revealed that effective decentralized local public governance is more likely realized
with government supply of citizens and citizens demand from government bodies.
Proponents of decentralization ascertained that decentralization has the potential to adjust
intergovernmental relations, allow community participation in public issues, improve responsiveness,
transparency (enhanced communication between citizens and government), and enhance local capacity for
services provision and local governance (World Bank, 2010:1; Shah and Shah, 2006). Decentralization
strengthens the local and regional capacity; as a result, it increases the efficiency and effectiveness of
governments and contributes to effective decentralized governance as well as better public service provision
(Selee, 2004; p.3). In contrast, the opponents of decentralization argued that decentralized systems arise from
“coordination problems” as well as potential mismatches between finance and functions of sub-national
governments (Zoescott, 2009; Dollery and Robotti, 2008). In addition, “decentralization was viewed as likely to
increase political and ethnic division” (Schneider, 2002, p.4, Tsegaye, 2006).
Furthermore , empirical studies on decentralization and its impact on local governance of developing
countries remarks that decentralization plans did not achieve their target due to nonresponsive and unaccountable
local governments, where clientalism, corruption and elite capture have broadly recognized as main barriers to
achieving development as well as improvements in public service provision targets (World Bank, 2010). Lack of
accountability in public sectors results of corruption and waste of precious development resources. As a result,
the quality and effectiveness of decentralized public governance to improve basic public services provision to
meet basic needs affected negatively (World Bank, 2010, Manor, 2011). Moreover, it denies citizens of their
inherent right to influence decisions that directly affect their lives and to hold state officials accountable for the
public resources with which they have entrusted (World Bank, 2010).
Despite the government and decentralization reforms practice most developing countries including
Ethiopia, as World Bank (2003), reported majority of “the rural people did not and do not have access to clean
water, electricity, and other services crucial for their health and livelihood’. Local development failures have
been associated with ‘poor governance: the lack of transparency and access to public information; weak
accountability relationships; low level of citizen participation and lack of responsiveness” (ibid).
On the other hand, some literatures on decentralization showed that the outcomes on change in
efficiency, equity and effectiveness in local governance are both positive and negative (Meheret, 2007, Manor,
2011). In some African countries, decentralization has enhanced community participation at which local people
decide on their public interest based on their preferences and priorities (Kimenyi and Meagher, 2004; Shah and
Shah, 2006). Decentralization reform might strengthen the interaction between ordinary citizens and local
government authorities; this interaction provides citizens of better opportunity to forward their preferences and
priorities (Manor, 2011). Thus, the local government bodies would become accountable to their actions. That is,
decentralization may strengthen accountability mechanisms between politicians and public managers in multi-
level tier government structure (Oates, 2005; Dollery and Robotti, 2008, Manor, 2011). As a result, local
authorities are likely to become more responsive to the local citizens demand (Faquet, 2004; Chema and Rondilli,
2007).
Empowered local citizens and government play an important role in undertaking that local government
act and perform goals for the public welfare directly(World Bank, 2010; Chema and Rondilli, 2007; Shah and
Shah, 2006). Decentralization reforms of self-governing institutions create opportunity for the citizens to directly
participate in local governance of either formal institutions or informal discussion (UN, 2007, p.2). Finally, they
expected to promote civil society and local communities in formulating and communicating their preferences
and priorities on issues of subject to them (ibid). For example, an empirical study on decentralization impacts on
participation in Uganda reveals that participatory social policymaking and implementation involves local
community (UN, 2007). This participation helps to protect the right to education. In Romania, governance
reforms facilitated the communication with health between the local population and public
authorities. Strengthening the interaction between citizens and local public authorities through government
reforms empowered the members of the local community to improve their right to health (ibid). In
the aforementioned cases, success on the right to education and health services have been achieved through the
provision of culturally accessible information about education and health issues (ibid). This shows that
community participation in social issues could enhance responsiveness of the government institutions for local
preferences and priorities. Decentralization might empower various stakeholders to develop all the details of a
plan for local development and public service provision as well as their implementation (Manor, 2011). This
participatory mechanism persuades local actors to use opportunities and resources to keep up public interest
(Shah and Shah, 2006). However, in some cases empowering local governments to make public decision
makings on behalf of the ordinary people weaken the mechanism for the separation of power as well as the ways
for checks and balances, for the reason that decision makers and politicians may interfere in the executive
decision making (Shah and Shah, 2006). The formal and informal local governance institutions and their
85
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
interactions can also influence improvements in governance and public service provision (Kimenyi and Meagher,
2004; World Bank, 2010:1). Whether, or why and how the decentralization practically meets the intentions or
not is open for further research and analysis.
86
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Particularly, DLDP aims to promote public trust mainly through empowering local government units. It
expects to ensure the public more participatory, accountable, transparent, responsive decentralized local
governance institutions, and improved public services provision (Meheret 2007, Assefa 2007). While
devolving power, resources and responsibilities is hopped to support the government to adjust poor
governance: the lack of transparency and access to public information; weak accountability relationships; low
level of citizen participation and lack of responsiveness (World Bank 2013). Based on this reason, the central
government transferred an increasing financial resource to local governments in implementing DLDP since
2001/o2. The central question being asked is whether centralized control and command system of government is
completed. While some scholars, quoting the local government problem that decentralization has experienced,
asserted that it is indeed rhetoric than practiced (Merara, 2007). Other scholars proclaimed that it has mixed in
terms of results (Meheret, 2007). It has been contested; new types of governance mechanisms have been
complemented to the continual reformation; there have been some setbacks, especially when it approaches’ to the
local empowerment and effectiveness of local public governance (Tsegaye, 2006).However, in general the plans
did not achieve their target (Meheret, 2006). Decentralization impacts on development in Ethiopia pointed out
both positive and negative results (Tsegaye, 2006). As Zemelak (2011) argued, effectiveness of decentralization
reform has been contested with different horizontal and vertical political, administrative, and fiscal imbalances due
different institutional capacities between tiers of governments. It has clearly drawn new attention to the role of the
national and sub national Governments as well as the intergovernmental relations, local governance – between the
private, public and voluntary sectors. Government institutions in National, Regional State, Zonal, District and
Kebele levels face significant decentralization policy challenges with the implementation of the reform to
effective decentralized public governance at grassroots.
These challenges influence the effectiveness of decentralization processes of effective decentralized
local public governance. The performance of Central and Regional State Governments may affect the initiatives
to address the problems faced by decentralized local public governance. The performance of Central and
Regional State Governments may affect the initiatives to address the problems faced by decentralized local
public governance. It is also possible that decentralization policy implementation at the grass-root levels is such
that it does not adheres to information symmetry from central and regional State Government actors. Whatever
the case may be, it is primarily clear that the decentralized local governance of the country is not performing
effectively well (Meheret, 2007, Zemelak, 2011). However, its practice calls for empirical information at the
ground.
Moreover, despite the recognized importance of DLDP for effective decentralized governance to
improve public services provision, empirical studies on DLDP impacts on local public governance features of
government accountability, transparency and responsiveness, and community participation and empowerment,
and local capacity in public decision -making and implementation in Guraghe Zone and its Districts is almost
lacking (Tegegne and Kassahun, 2007, p.55). More specifically, as of my personal knowledge and experience
there is no empirical study conducted to explore and discuss decentralization impacts on decentralized public
governance in Guraghe Zone and its Districts, Ethiopia since 2001/02. In other words, researches on
decentralization impacts on local public governance of Guraghe Zone and its Districts from local bodies view are
relatively under-assessed, new directions for what is done are needed, and decentralized governance effectiveness
have again received considerable attention in the study area
The target population of this study includes council members, public officials, civil servants, CSOs and
community leaders. They can share the obstacles in practice and the potential success factors of decentralization.
Therefore, this study is expected to contribute to the aforementioned gaps based on both primary and secondary
data. Therefore, the focus on this study is not at evaluating public governance issues of central and regional
governments of Ethiopia, instead it aims to assess decentralization impacts on local public governance in Guraghe
Zone and its Districts, Ethiopia. For decentralized governance to succeed, the dangers of recentralization and
monopoly of power by local elites must be mitigated (Kimenyi and Meagher, 2004). This problem can be
reduced or aggravated with the existence or non-existence of well-established local democratic good governance.
District level decentralization in Ethiopia aims to promote decentralized good governance of the grassroots. In
the absence of empowered community at grassroots, local elite capture distorts the government system not only
by providing rents to specific economic actors, but also by greatly altering markets and reducing the welfare
of service users (World Bank, 2003). This poses local government failures. Some scholars argued that local
government failures disconnect government with citizens. As Treisman (2007) argued, decentralization reform has
increased direct and active citizen participation. As a result, it promotes public benefit at grassroots. Some local
governments are being more accountable and responsive to constituents after implementation of decentralization
reform (UN, 2007). Consequently, local public governance is intended to solve the government failures of
bureaucratic, hierarchical, unresponsive and misuse of scarce resources and other centralized government
disconnections with the public.
There is a large body of theoretical and empirical literature in democratic decentralization theory
87
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
supporting the argument that decentralization is necessary to achieve decentralized good governance, political
stability, as well as sustainable development (Manor, 2011, World Bank, 2010). On the other hand, Olewu and
Wusch (2004) argue that a local self-motivated elites that are committed to private development than public
interest could produce an even worse decentralized governance than central governments. In addition, as Ahmad
et al. (2005) argued, decentralization has facilitated participatory local governance plans with mixed results.
Treisman (2007) also claims that decentralization reform impact on participation is undetermined. It may either
intense resource use for development or it may aggravate corruption. In other words, Treisman questioned
whether decentralization privileged local ordinary citizens or increases misuses of resources and power devolved
to empower them (Treisman, 2007). Effectiveness of decentralization, however, relies on how it is implemented,
and how local governance actors are interacted within their context and without side actors (Manor, 2007;
Mullins, 2004).
88
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
elected officials (World Bank, 2010). Through this, the local authorities have better opportunity than central
government bodies to know about local needs, preferences and priorities for better public services provision
(Conyers, 2007). Consequently, the local government has to become responsive for local demands than the
center. “Transparency in formulation and implementation of public policies empowers the public to access social
services and demand protection of their rights’ (UN, 2007). Study in Ecuador on transparency in budgeting
process shows that providing accessible information for citizens at the grass root level improved public spending
on education, health, welfare employment and housing(ibid). Similarly, facilitating accessibility of government
performance documents based on the demand strengthening accountability on public official. In transparent and
accountable decentralized governance systems, local governments consult citizens in the policies, programs,
projects affecting their development fairly, and equally (Seele, 2006). This enhances citizens’ capacity to
participate in every aspects of country’s development intervention. It gives incentive to make measurable
decision on public affairs.
Empirical studies on decentralization impacts on local governance emphasizes on local government
accountability or lack of it. With the emerging rent seeking behaviors of government bodies’ accountability or
lack of accountability on the local elected and appointed officials, civil servants, elected representatives, and
among other local governance actors capture focus of government reform advocators. Decentralization intended
to hold back the misuses of public resources and power (UN, 2007). This needs grievance and redress
mechanisms for any official duty failures in the public realm.
3 Research Methodology
This article is based on data collected in a social survey study undertaken in Guraghe Zone and its Districts, Ethiopia in
2013/14. Guraghe Zone is selected purposively. Eight Guraghe Zone Districts were randomly sampled. The purpose
of the study was to examine decentralization impacts on local governance variables such as accountability,
responsiveness and transparency. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from primary and secondary
sources through field surveys, Key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and content analysis of relevant
documents including the Constitution of the 1995 Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopian (FDRE), 2001 revised South
Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS) Constitution. The data was presented anonymously, in line
with the ethical agreement between the researcher and survey participants. The data was integrated with the
purpose of analysis and interpretation.
89
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Note: SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree, U= Undecided, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree
Source: Researcher’s field survey 2013/14
5.1.2 Decentralization Impacts on Local Elected Representatives Accountability
As can be taken in from figure below, majority of respondents (43.5%) in the survey sample strongly agree or
agree that decentralization has ensured elected representatives accountability while about the same number of
respondents (40.1%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that it has ensured elected representatives’ accountability.
In this regard, the data shows that there are democratic accountability problems of Guraghe Zone and its
Districts.
Figure below illustrates us that the perceptions of respondents for the decentralization reform impacts
90
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
on local elected representatives’ accountability show a disagreement. 9.9% and 33.6% of the total survey
participants’ confirmed the decentralization has ensured council members accountability by rating it as strongly
agreed and agreed, respectively. While a significant number of participants rejected the assertion by rating the
perception as disagreed (24.8%) or strongly disagreed (15.3%). The remaining 16.8% was undecided to rate on
the statement (see figure below).
Responses Total
SA A U D SD
Responden elected Count 4 21 8 8 7 48
t's role official % within 10.3 20.8 20.0 17.4 19.4 18.3
% of Total 1.5 8.0 3.1 3.1 2.7 18.3
expert Count 32 71 24 33 25 185
% within 82.1 70.3 60 71.7 69.4 70.6
% of Total 12.2 27.1 9.2 12.6 9.5 70.6
council Count 3 9 8 5 4 29
member % within 7.7 8.9 20.0 10.9 11.1 11.1
% of Total 1.1 3.4 3.1 1.9 1.5 11.1
Total Count 39 101 40 46 36 262
% of Total 14.9 38.5 15.3 17.6 13.7 100
Note: SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree, U= Undecided, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree
Source: Researcher’s field survey 2013/14
91
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Table 3: perception on Local government institution responsiveness for local priorities and preferences
Respondent’s role
Survey question Responses Total
official expert Council member
Count 14 70 9 93
Yes
Are Local % within 29.2 37.8 31 35.5
government Count 22 71 8 101
No
institutions % within 45.8 38.4 27.6 38.5
responsive for Count 12 44 12 68
local preferences Yes, Partially
% within 25 23.8 41.4 26
and priorities?
Count 48 185 29 262
Total
% of total 18.3 70.6 11.1 100
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
92
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Table 4: perceptions on Local communities participated in or consulted about decisions on level and type of
services
Survey Question Role of respondents’ Responses Total
Yes No IDK
Have Local communities participated in Count 23 18 7 48
or consulted about decisions on what elected %within 19 19.8 14 18.3
level and type of service is to be official % of Total 8.8 6.9 2.7 18.3
provided? expert Count 86 63 36 185
%within 71.1 69.2 72.0 70.6
% of Total 32.8 24.0 13.7 70.6
council Count 12 10 7 29
member %within 9.9 11.0 14.0 11.1
% of Total 4.6 3.8 2.7 11.1
Total Count 121 91 50 262
% of Total 46.2 34.7 19.1 100
Note: IDK= I do not know
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
Table 5: Perceptions on information availability to local communities on level and type of services provision
Survey Question Respondents’ role Responses
NR Yes No IDK Total
elected Count( 1 17 22 8 48
Do you think that local official % within 50 16.0 20.8 16.7 18.3
communities have informed as to % of Total 0.4 6.5 8.4 3.1 18.3
what level and type of services expert Count 1 75 73 36 185
are to be provided? % within 50 70.8 68.9 75. 70.6
% of Total 0.4 28.6 27.9 13.7 70.6
council Count 0 14 11 4 29
member % within 0.0 13.2 10.4 8.3 11.1
% of Total 0.0 5.3 4.2 1.5 11.1
Total Count 2 106 106 48 262
% of Total 0.8 40.5 40.5 18.3 100
Note: NR= No Response, IDK= I do not know
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
93
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
respondents responded positively, over 46.9% of the respondents observed that local communities had no
complaint and redress rights for the service provision, the remaining 15.3% of the respondents did not know
about local communities’ complaint and redress rights on services provision (see Table 6 below)
Table 6: perceptions on local communities’ expectation to receive a standardized level of service, quality targets,
and rights to complain and redress mechanisms
Local government responsiveness indicators Responses Total
NR Yes No IDK
local communities reasonably expected to receive a Count 1 109 109 43 262
standardized level of services % of Total 0.4 41.6 41.6 16.4 100
setting service quality targets and reporting Count 2 96 126 38 262
performance against them % of Total 0.8 36.6 48.1 14.5 100
local communities have rights of complaint and Count 0 99 123 40 262
redress to service failures % of Total 0.0 37.8 46.9 15.3 100
Note: NR= No Response, IDK= I do not know
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
94
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Table8: Are local government procedures transparent? * Respondent's Role; Cross tabulation
Are local government procedures transparent? Respondents
NR Yes No IDK Total
Respondent's Role Elected Count 1 23 21 3 48
official % within 50 16.3 21 16.7 18.4
% of Total 0.4 8.8 8 1.1 18.4
expert Count 1 98 70 15 184
% within 50 69.5 70 83.3 70.5
% of Total 0.4 37.5 26.8 5.7 70.5
council Count 0 20 9 0 29
member % within 0.0 14.2 9.0 0.0 11.1
% of Total 0.0 7.7 3.4 0.0 11.1
Total Count 2 141 100 18 261
% of Total 0.8 54 38.3 6.9 100
Note: NR= No Response, IDK= I do not know
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
95
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Table10: Do you think that decentralization has ensured transparency of local governments?
In your opinion, do you think that decentralization Responses Total
has ensured transparency of local governments? NR Yes No IDK
elected Count 0 18 21 9 48
official % within 0.0 15.9 18.9 25 18.3
Respondent's % of Total 0.0 6.9 8 3.4 18.3
Role expert Count 2 79 81 23 185
% within 100 69.9 73 63.9 70.6
% of Total 0.8 30.2 30.9 8.8 70.6
council Count 0 16 9 4 29
member % within 0.0 14.2 8.1 11.1 11.1
% of Total 0.0 6.1 3.4 1.5 11.1
Total Count 2 113 111 36 262
% of Total 0.8 43.1 42.4 13.7 100
Note: NR=no response, IDK= I do not know
Source: Own field survey 2013/14
Note: SD= Strongly Disagree, D= Disagree, U= Undecided, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree
Source: Researcher’s field survey 2013/14
96
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
bodies with the assumption that government elected and appointed officials are more trustworthy for positive
decentralization reform outcome than other government bodies.
Note: IDK=I do not Know, Ecmember=elected council member, civil=civil servants, CSO=civil society leaders, CBO=
community based organization leaders, NGO=non-government organization leaders
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2013/14
97
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
6 Conclusion
After 1991 the government of Ethiopia has been publicized Constitutions both at the Federal and Regional States
of the country. These institutional developments have been composed of the provision of democratic, social,
economic, cultural, and human rights of the nations, nationalities and peoples of the country. District level
decentralization was designed to facilitate interaction between government and non-government actors for
effective local governance and development. It aims to strengthen local governance actors’ accountability to
citizens and their representatives for official responsibility failures of grassroots. However, majority of
participants dissatisfied with local government bodies accountability to the public. FGDs participants also
reported that local governments’ structures of Guraghe Zone and its Districts are biased with few political
patronage and kinship networks. Accountability mechanisms are not well institutionalized in local government
design and structure so that weak accountability between services provision of executives and elected
representatives. Data show that local administrators’ accountability to their constituents is weak. It may be that
they are more accountable to the upper level chief administrators than their constituents are.
However, it is more likely that ordinary citizens do not demand accountability and responsiveness from
higher-level government bodies than their counter local government bodies, since they are expected to know
local situations with full information to respond to local public issues. Changing such a control and command
mechanism may facilitate strengthening of local institution building. However, many scholars argued that even
though the DLDP conveys significant governance outcomes in terms of changing the past regimes backlog
particularly citizens’ participation (Meheret, 2007; Zemelak, 2011).
Analysis of survey respondents to the decentralization impact on local governance variables of
accountability, responsiveness, transparency to the public as well as citizen participate in and consulted to the
projects affecting local public affairs calls for more significant government consideration than ever before.
First, according the 1995 FDRE Constitution article 43(2) ” citizens have the right to participate in
national development and, in particular, to be consulted with respect to policies and projects affecting their
community”. However, effectiveness of citizens participation of the local level is far to go. The finding show
that low levels of citizen participation in and consultation to government policy, programs and projects affecting
them are widely prevalent, signifying its challenges on effective local governance of Guraghe Zone and its
Districts are confront with. The findings clearly indicate that the problems faced by local governance of Guraghe
Zone and its Districts are very much related to the existing corruption and misuses of transferred resources by
local governance actors. Although, it is not the only cause to the problem.
98
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Most survey respondents are not very keen on centralized government systems as can be seen by large
support for decentralized governance of properly structured self-governance institutional design such as
accountability, responsiveness and transparency of Guraghe Zone and its Districts. In addition, to some extent, it
is possible to say that the government’s claim that district level decentralization program could strengthens
community empowerments is true. However, it is difficult to push the claim beyond that.
In fact, the findings of this study do not support well the governments’ argument that district level
decentralization program could compensate the problems of local governance of Ethiopia. Looking at the impact
of public resources use matters a lot. The local governance actors’ involvement in misuse of public resources
despite the emerging watchdog institution provides an insight that a suitable local governance policy will
facilitate the operation of effective decentralized public governance to enable better allocation of the public
resources. Using public resources effectively is an important aspect that needs to be encouraged and formalized.
I argue here that properly strengthening of community based organization(CBO), which less involves in misuse
of local public resources(see figure 2 ), and creating a network with local government units for decision
making on public resources use for local development is a necessary condition for democratic and effective
decentralized public governance emergence of Guraghe Zone and its Districts. Otherwise, locally captured elite
based decentralized system has apparently put unnecessary panic that democratic ethnic based local governance
in Ethiopia in general, and Guraghe Zone and its Districts in particular yield to populist pressures and thus will
not have the discipline that is required to protect the patrons from installing and implementing government
policies and projects for their own interest than the ordinary citizen.
Therefore, this study suggests that a more effective local governance system focused on involving
community based organization(CBO) and that takes into account citizens participation in and consultation with
local policies and projects including a mixture of private, state and NGOs interaction apparently generate
significant support among the ordinary citizens rather than being hooked by government units that characterizes
the current local governance in Guraghe Zone.
The government development strategies and the growth and transformation plan (2010-2015) highlight
the importance of government accountability, responsiveness and transparency for the countries renaissance and
sustainable development (GTP, 2010). Although the government acknowledges the implementation gaps of its
development plans particularly district level decentralization program, the root causes of such failures have not
been investigate particularly at local levels of Guraghe Zone and its Districts.
Moreover, ensure accountability of local governance actors is one of the central rationales of
decentralization. Without enforcing proper accountability mechanisms in practice, it is not possible to protect
misuses of public resources at the grass roots. In other words, transfer of power, resources, and function to local
units could be effective in causing long-term local development only if it is complemented with the existence of
both upward and downward accountability and among other instrumental factors.
References
Ahmad,E., Brosio, G., and Tanzi1, V.2008. Local Service Provision in Selected OECD Countries do
decentralized operations work better?. International Monetary Fund.
Ahmad, J., Devarajian, S.,Khemani, S., and Shah, S.,2006. Decentralization and Service Delivery, in Ehtisham
Ahmad and Giorgio Brosio eds., Handbook of Fiscal Federalism. UK: Edward Elgar PL.
Altmann, J., Carino, L., Flaman, R., Kulessa, M., Schulz, I., 2000. The UNDP Role in
Decentralization and Local Governance: A Joint UNDP–Government of Germany Evaluation. United Nations
Development Programme Evaluation Office, New York, USA
Azfar, O., Kahkonen, S. and Meagher, P., 2001.Conditions for Effective Decentralized Governance: a synthesis
of research findings. Maryland: World Bank.
Azfar, O., Kahkonen, S., Lanyi, A., and Meagher, p., Rutherford, D., 1999. Decentralization,
Governance and Public Services the Impact of Institutional Arrangements: a review Of the literature. Maryland:
IRIS Center. Available at:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/Decentralization/Lit_Review_IRIS.pdf
[accessed 20 February 2012].
Brietzke, P., 1995. Ethiopia's "Leap in the Dark": Federalism and Self-Determination in the New
Constitution, Journal of African Law, Vol. 39, No. 1.
Bardhan, P. and Mookherjee, D., 2006. Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: a
Comparative perspective. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Batley, R. and Larbi, G.,2004. The Changing Role of Government: the reform of public services in developing
countries. UK: University of Birmingham.
Blaug, R., Horner L. and Lekhi, R., 2006. Public Value, Politics and Public Management: A Literature Review.
London: the Work Foundation.
Bratton, M., 2010. Citizen Perceptions of Local Government Responsiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. Working
99
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
100
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.12, 2014
Olowu, D. and Wunsch, J.S.,2004. Local Governance in Africa: the challenges of democratic decentralization.
London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
PSCAP Report. 2008. Ethiopia Public Sector Capacity Building Program Support Project: Mid-Term Review
Aide Memoire, Ethiopia.
Robinson, M.,2007. Does Decentralisation Improve Equity and Efficiency in Public Service Delivery Provision?
2 February, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 38 ( 1), pp.18-29. Available at:
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/1Intro38.11.pdf [accessed 10 February 2013].
Rondinelli, D. A., McCullough, J. S., and Johnson, R.W.,1989. Analyzing Decentralization Policies in
Developing Countries: a political-economy framework: development and change. New Delhi: SAGE.
Available at:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4g6jW0lHeEJ:dess.fmp.ueh.edu.ht/pdf/colloque2012_Rondinelli
_analyse_decentralisation_economie_politique.pdf [accessed 18 October 2012].
Rosen, H.S. and Gayer, T.,2010. Public Finance. New York,McGraw-Hill.
Schneider, A.,2002. Decentralization and the Poor. England: University of Sussex. Available at:
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/Mis_SPC/R76163.pdf [accessed 16 January 2013].
Selee,A.D., 2006. The Paradox of Local Empowerment: Decentralization and Democratic
Governance In Mexico; Maryland; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland. Available at :
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/3373 [accessed 10 November 2012]
Shah, A. and Shah, A.,2006. The New Vision of Local Governance and the Evolving Roles of Local
Governments. In: Anwar Shah. Ed, local governance in developing countries; Washington: The World Bank.
Tegegne Gebre-Egziabher,2007. A Brief Review of Decentralization in Ethiopia. In :Taye
Assefa and Tegegne Gebre-Egziabher .ed. 2007. Decentralization in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa:Forum for Social
Studies.Ch1.
Tesfaye Tadese.2006. Decentralization and Service Delivery: The Case of Moretenna Jiru and Bereh Aletu
Woreda in North Shoa, In: Taye Assefa and Tegegne Gebere-Egziabher, ed.2007. Decentralization in Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa: Forum for Social Studies.Ch4.
Tsegaye Tegenu .2006. Evaluation of the Operation and Performance of Ethnic Decentralization System in
Ethiopia: A case Study of Guraghe People, 1999-2000. Ethiopia : Addis Ababa University Press.
UN. 2007. Good Governance Practices for the Protection of Human Rights. New York and Geneva: United
Nations. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GoodGovernance.pdf[accessed 2 January
2013]
World Bank,2010. Demanding Good Governance: lessons from social accountability initiatives in Africa.
Washington: the World Bank.
World Bank, 2oo5. Public Service Delivery in Anwar Shah(eds.), Public Sector Governance and Accountability
Series, Washington, D.C.
World Bank .2003. World Development Report 2004: Making services work for poor people, World
Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington DC.
101
The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event management.
The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.
There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting platform.
Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the following
page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available online to the
readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version of the journals is also
available upon request of readers and authors.
MORE RESOURCES