In the name of bringing services closer to the people? Explaining the creation of new local government districts in Uganda. (December 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Awortwi, Nicholas; Helmsing, A.H.J. (Bert)
• Is Part Of: International review of administrative sciences. Volume 80:Number 4(2014:Dec.)
• Page Start: 766
• Page End: 788
• Publication Date: 2014-12
• Subjects: administration and democracy -- administrative organization and structures -- administrative theory; Public administration -- Periodicals; Comparative government -- Periodicals; 320
• DOI: 10.1177/0020852314533455
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-8523

Abstract

Many governments in Africa and elsewhere in Asia and Latin America have created new local government (LG) jurisdictions as part of their decentralization policies. However, most decentralization studies have focused on fiscal, political and administrative assignments between levels of government. Much less attention has been given to the number and size of LG jurisdictions. Often, these are considered to be an accident of history, but the reality is not so. This article pursues five propositions concerning the rationale for creating LG jurisdictions and examines their relevance in the Uganda context. The article concludes that creation of LG jurisdictions in Uganda neither conforms to the policy objective of bringing services closer to the people nor to promoting participatory democratic governance. Instead, the practice conforms to central government gerrymandering tactics of forging an electoral alliance with small jurisdictions and to extend neo-patrimonial networks to win votes in order to stay in power. Points for practitioners: Donors and development practitioners have often expressed their frustrations on decentralization policies and outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) because they have analysed the policy based on what governments say their intentions are. Until they understand the political economy of decentralization in Africa they will always be bewildered not only by the mismatch between policy objectives and outcomes but also by many unspoken rationales for implementing decentralization reforms. Decentralization can be a facade behind which quite different practices take place. In many countries in SSA, it is a narrowly political process that ruling governments pursue for their own benefit (or accept to pursue when pushed by donors where it hurts them least) and not for the nicely written policy statements of improving services.