Table 5.1 Decentralization: Pro and Con
| Table 5.1 Decentralization: Pro and con |
| For | Against |
| Promotes democracy because it provides better opportunities for local residents to participate in decision-making. |
Undermines democracy by empowering local elites, beyond the reach or concern of central power. |
| Increases efficiency in delivery of public services—delegation of responsibility avoids bottlenecks and bureaucracy. |
Worsens delivery of service in the absence of effective controls and oversight. |
| Leads to higher quality of public services, because of local accountability and sensitivity to local needs. |
Quality of services deteriorates due to lack of local capacity and insufficient resources. |
| Enhances social and economic development, which rely on local knowledge. |
Gains arising from participation of local people offset by risks of increased corruption and inequalities among regions. |
| Increases transparency, accountability, and the response capacity of government institutions. |
Promises too much and overloads capacity of local governments.
|
| Allows greater political representation for diverse political, ethnic, religious, and cultural groups in decision-making. |
Creates new or ignites dormant ethnic and religious rivalries. |
| Increases political stability and national unity by allowing citizens to better control public programs at the local level. |
Weakens states because it can increase regional inequalities, lead to separatism, or undermine national financial governance. |
| Acts as a spawning ground for new political ideas; leads to more creative and innovative programs. |
Gains in creativity offset by risk of empowering conservative local elites.
|
| Source: |
Adapted from ICHRP 2002:8.
