Forthcoming in Special issue: European Journal of Development Research, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2004 and Book form to be published by Frank Cass (London). Pre-Copy Edit Draft.
Forthcoming in Special issue: European Journal of Development Research, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring 2004 and Book form to be published by Frank Cass (London). Table of Contents.
Introduction
Decentralizations have taken place around the world over the past century [Ribot, 1999]. Since the mid 1980s, however, decentralization has become a truly global movement, affecting most developing countries [UNCDF, 2000:5-11; World Bank, 2000; Totemeyer, 2000; Dillinger, 1994; Therkildsen, 1993; Fisher, 1991]. Governments have decentralized for multiple political-economic, social and ideological reasons, and often with the support and pressure of aid agencies [Ribot, 2002b]. At least 60 countries now claim to be decentralizing some aspect of natural resource management [Agrawal, 2001]. The language of decentralization has changed in this most recent set of reforms [Ribot, forthcoming]. Earlier reforms emphasized national cohesion, effective rule and the efficient management of rural subjects [Buell, 1928; Mair, 1936; Mamdani, 1996]. In contrast, the most recent decentralizations are introducing a new emancipatory language of democracy, pluralism and rights. Wollenberg, Edmunds and Anderson [2001], Anderson, Clement and Crowder [1998], Alden Wily [2000a,b], Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan [2000] and Utting [1999] point out that natural resource management is moving toward more-democratic and rights-based premises. Indeed, most countries are labeling their decentralizations “democratic”.
While a mix of factors and forces shape the specific decentralization reforms in each country [Ribot, 2002a], most decentralization theorists and policy makers evoke developmentalist arguments contending that the increased efficiency, equity and inclusion that should arise from decentralization result in better and more sustainable management [Smoke, 2000; Manor, 1999; Crook and Manor, 1998; Mawhood, 1983; Uphoff and Esman, 1974; UNDP, 1999]. Some focus on its political and economic advantages. These advocates argue that decentralization plays important roles in democratization and people’s participation [Crook and Manor, 1998; Ribot, 1996; Mbassi, 1995:23; Rothchild, 1994:1]; rural development [Uphoff and Esman, 1974:xx; UNDP, 1999; Helmsing, 2001; Roe, 1995:833; De Valk, 1990; Ribot, 2002a]; public service performance [World Bank, 2000:107]; poverty alleviation [Crook and Sverrisson, 2001:iii]; relief of fiscal crisis [Olowu, 2001; Menizen-Dick and Knox, 1999:5]; political and macro-economic stability [World Bank, 2000:107; Prud’homme, 2001:14] or national unity and state building [Conyers, 2000:7; Mamdani, 1996; Bazaara, 2002,2003; Muhereza 2003]; and can help increase the legitimacy of government [Ribot, 2002a,b].
Is this tidal wave of decentralization discourse being legislated into appropriate laws and implemented in practice? What are its effects on the ground? This special issue of the European Journal of Development Research queries the state and effect of this movement through the lens of natural resource decentralizations. The articles in this special issue use a comparative framework to characterize the degree to which natural resource decentralizations can be said to be taking place and, where possible, to measure their social and environmental consequences. The articles in this volume, except for that of Meynen and Doornbos, which came to our attention later, are a subset of those presented at the Workshop on Decentralization and the Environment, held in Bellagio, Italy, 18 through 22 February, 2002. The purpose of this workshop was to consolidate the findings of research on decentralization and natural resources from around the world.
This issue includes case studies from Africa (Cameroon and South Africa); Asia (Indonesia, Mongolia, China and India) and Latin America (Nicaragua, Brazil and Bolivia), addressing the management of water, land, forests or pasture. In addition to the particular theoretical or practical concerns of each author, the comparative framework guiding the case studies focuses attention on
- the extent to which central governments have decentralized authority over natural resources to local governments or other sub-national entities,
- the relations between these local-level entities and the population, and
- the effects of these processes on local peoples and natural resources [see Ribot, 2001].
This introductory article also draws on other cases presented at Bellagio and available in the broader literature.
Notes:
It is important to note that the language of rights and enfranchisement was also present in earlier decentralizations. So, this is not a complete change, but rather democratization and rights issues emerge more frequently in this round. See Mair 1936. It should be taken as a cautionary note that the earlier decentralizations, which went under such titles as “indirect rule” were not emancipatory reforms (Ribot 1999; forthcoming).
