Local government decision‐making—citizen participation and local accountability: some evidence from Kenya and Uganda

The current fashion for decentralisation is built on the assumption that it will result in decisions that reflect local needs and priorities. Yet representative democracy through periodic elections is a crude mechanism for establishing these needs and priorities. Most local government systems offer few other opportunities for citizens to participate particularly for the poor and few mechanisms of accountability. This article reviews the literature relating local level decision-making citizen participation and accountability. It then presents the findings of a study of decision-making about the use of resources in a sample of municipal governments in Kenya and Uganda. Local governments in Kenya have traditionally offered minimal scope for citizen participation or accountability but this is beginning to change mainly as a result of performance conditions applied through the recently introduced Local Authorities Transfer Fund (LATF) together with an increasingly active civil society. In Uganda which has undergone a radical decentralisation there is much greater scope for citizen participation at the local level but there are still many of the same problems of local accountability as in Kenya. The article reviews some of the examples of and reasons for good (and bad) practice. It concludes that factors like committed local leadership central monitoring of performance articulate civil society organisations and the availability of information are critical. But even with these there is no guarantee that decentralised decision-making will be inclusive of the poor. (authors)

[1]  H. Ouedraogo Decentralisation and local governance: experiences from Francophone West africa , 2003 .

[2]  S. Aiyar The political economy of democratic decentralization , 1996 .

[3]  R. Crook Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: the politics of local–central relations , 2003 .

[4]  Martin Onyach-Olaa The challenges of implementing decentralisation: recent experiences in Uganda , 2003 .

[5]  Ariel Fiszbein The Emergence of local capacity: Lessons from Colombia☆ , 1997 .

[6]  H. White,et al.  Polity Qualities: How Governance Affects Poverty , 1999 .

[7]  D. Naraya Voices of the poor : can anyone hear us ? , 2000 .

[8]  G. Hanson,et al.  Guest editor’s preface , 1996 .

[9]  William R. Dillinger Decentralization and Its Implications for Service Delivery , 1994 .

[10]  Tim Campbell Decentralization to local government in LAC : national strategies and local response in planning, spending and management , 1991 .

[11]  J. Manor,et al.  Democratic decentralisation and institutional performance: Four Asian and African experiences compared , 1995 .

[12]  R. Crook,et al.  Decentralisation and Poverty-Alleviation in Developing Countries : A Comparative Analysis or, is West Bengal Unique? , 2001 .

[13]  Gerry Stoker,et al.  Bringing citizen voice and client focus into service delivery , 2001 .

[14]  J. Wunsch Decentralization, local governance and ‘recentralization’ in Africa , 2001 .

[15]  Harry W. Blair,et al.  Participation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries , 2000 .

[16]  David Hulme,et al.  Beyond the New Public Management: Changing Ideas and Practices in Governance , 1998 .

[17]  P. Smoke Decentralisation in Africa: goals, dimensions, myths and challenges , 2003 .

[18]  I. Guijt,et al.  The myth of community : gender issues in participatory development , 1998 .

[19]  W. Tordoff,et al.  Votes and budgets : comparative studies in accountable governance in the South , 1995 .

[20]  Ajay Chhibber,et al.  The state in a changing world , 1997 .

[21]  Ajay Chhibber,et al.  World development report 1997 : the state in a changing world , 1997 .