CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The word Decentralisation is more a semantic umbrella beneathwhich are gathered many and different concept than it isanalytically precise term

According to Rondinelli et al (1984) “Decentralisation is thetransfer of responsibility for planning, management andresource raising and allocation from the central government tothe field units of central government ministries or agencies,subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomouspublic authorities, or corporation, area-wide regional orfunctional authorities, non-governmental organisations andprivate firms”.

Despite its vast scope, decentralisation has seldom if everlived up to expectation. Decentralisation programme accordingto (Rondenelli and Chema1983, p. 21) have been implementedglobally mainly for two reason. First is seen as a key elementof process of democratisation and particularly in the searchfor more participatory approach to development.

It is viewed as the key to improving the planning and theimplementation of rural development and facilitating popularparticipation in the development process.

Secondly, decentralisation has been regarded as administrativereforms frequently driven by door agencies that have seen itas a means of slimming down ineffective central administration

Benet (1990) also highlight a useful distinction between twogeneral decentralising thrusts thus, inter-governmentaldecentralisation and market based decentralisation.

Intergovernmental decentralisation involves transfer ofauthorities, responsibilities, powers and resources downward

1

among different levels of government whereas market baseddecentralisation is where power, authority etc. aretransferred downward by government to the market, on-governmental organisation. Each category embraces numerousstrategies of transferring functions.

In the development concept, decentralisation has been linkedto such benefits as equity, effectiveness, efficiency andresponsiveness. In line with this, Rondinelli (1984) positsthat by reducing diseconomies of scale inherent in the overconcentration of decision making in national capital,decentralization can increase the number of public goods andservices and efficiency with which they are delivered at lowercost, thus the potential benefits of decentralisation has alsobeen promoted as part of good governance initiative launchedby the world bank and other donors in the late 1980s (worldbank, 1989).

According to Awhoi (2010), “Academic and other writers ondecentralisation very often confuse the term decentralisationwith other concept that look like decentralisation but couldbest be describe as variants administrative decentralisation.

Rather those concept namely devolution, delegation, de-concentration (decongestion), and public private partnershipsare alternative methods aimed at achieving efficient andeffective public administration system”, to him they are notforms of decentralisation.

On the basis of the above, Awhoi (2010) defineddecentralisation as “a tool of public administration reformthat involve the transfer of functions and powers, skills andcompetences and means and resources to lower-levels ofgovernance” normally structures of local government, though insome jurisdictions, the transfer is to other spheres ofgovernance.

2

In analysing from the above definition from the variousauthors, one may not be wrong by perceiving decentralisationas the devolution by central (i.e. national government ofspecific functions with all administrative, political, andeconomic attributes that these entails, to local(i.e.municipal) governments which are independent of the centre andsovereign within a legally delimited geographical and functiondomain

The demand of decentralisation is strongly throughout theworld because of it link to the concept of subsidiarity whichholds that decisions should be taken at most appropriate levelof governance and establishes a presumption that this levelwill be the lowest available(vankersbergen andverbeck,1994).The world bank (2000) sees a great promise indecentralisation in countries globally.

In the early post-independence era the choice of strategy forgovernment in Ghana was preponderantly informed and influenceby centralist methods. This was characterised by theperpetuation top-down authoritarian approaches to problemsrequiring a genuine partnership between urban technical andpoor and rural people, and discouraging participation in thedevelopment process by poor and rural dwellers as well aspoorly designed projects and programmes which did not fitlocal want, needs and condition and shifting of vast resourcesto the centre from the field (Hyden, 1980, Cheema andRondinelli, 1983).

The emergence of decentralisation has shaped the contours ofdevelopment thinking, administration and governance both inthe developed and developing countries.

Globally, every nation today has a system of local government.The form it takes depends on the nature of the society inwhich it works and conception of the people it serves. Yet oneprinciple is common, that power is given to the local body tocarry out functions within the locality

3

Asibuo (1992) noted that local government is an essentialinstrument of national government which unites people of adefined common organisation whose functions are essentiallycomplementary to those of the central government and in theinterest of the local residents for the satisfaction of commoncommunity needs. He observed that all communities haveproblems and needs which are shared by the citizens and whichcan be alleviated only by their joint action generally throughgovernment at the local level.

The primary aim of this study is to ascertain the problemsfacing Assemblies decentralisation in Ghana today a case studyat Agona West Municipal assembly.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Efficient decentralisation programmes offer the opportunity toset up democratic institution which the poor can activelyparticipate, decide and lobby for their interest.

Improve knowledge and induce competition lead to a bettermatching of local needs and better policies. This improvementwill bring about efficiency gains especially in the area ofservice delivery in terms of access, quality, and targeting.

As the capacity of citizens to monitor local officials andpoliticians is higher in a decentralised system, there areopportunities for an increase in transparency and thusreduction in corruption and an overall improvement in localgovernment.

This latter is expected to reduce the vulnerability of thepoor. However in AgonaWest municipal assembly, the quest toachieve the benefits of decentralisation is beset withproblems.

These problems to decentralisation in general have made someauthors like Crook and Sverisson (2010) wonder, whether or not

4

decentralisation is able deliver real benefits in servicedelivery and governance.

The two authors concluded that the development of more propoor policy or poverty reduction outcomes clearly lacks anyconvincing evidence, particularly the perceived impact ofdecentralisation on beneficiary.

It is against this wide spread notion that this study tries toelicit the problems facing assembly’s decentralisation using.Agona West Municipal Assembly as case study area.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main objective of this study is to find out the problemsfacing assembly’s decentralisation

The specific objectives

Analyse the peoples understanding of decentralisation atthe local level in the municipality

Find out the problems of decentralisation in themunicipality

RESEARCH QUESTION

The following research question guided the study

What is the community member understanding of the conceptof decentralisation?

What are the problems that the municipality faces in thedecentralisation process?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY There has been a paradigm shift in the government

toward a more participatory form of governance ,Anexamination of problems of decentralisation will

5

help find lasting solution to these problems so asto reap the full benefit of decentralisation

Even though a lot has been done on decentralisation,the study seeks to find out peoples level ofunderstanding of decentralisation to guide policymakers in their conceptualisation in developmentmanagement.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW6

This chapter reviews related literature on the conceptdecentralisation, forms of decentralisation, Benefits andproblems of decentralisation

Decentralisation

Decentralisation means different things to different people,and a variety of motivations can be uncovered for the recentattempts to decentralise planning and administration indeveloping countries (Rondinelli & Cheema, 1983).

The ‘transfer of authority to plan, make decisions and managepublic functions from a higher level of government to anyindividual, organisation or agency at a lower level’, providesa basic working definition of decentralization (Rondinelli,1981;137)

The concept of decentralisation is based on certain premisesas listed by Rondinelli and Cheema (1997) and Von Brot (2001),which include the following:

The herculean task in development cannot be tackled aloneby the central government whose resources are limited,and that the task of development of necessity involvesthe mobilisation of the whole nation.

Locally felt needs can be properly identified only bylocal communities; and it is they alone who caneffectively plan their realisation. A corollary of thisviewpoint is that central government is too far off toappreciate the pressing needs of the vast rural areas.

Centrally formulated development schemes face risk offailure of execution and realisation or rejection at thelocal levels if the communities are not involved in theplanning process.

Rondinelli et al (1983) define decentralisation as thetransfer of responsibility for planning, management, resourceraising and allocation from the central government and itsagencies to field units of central government ministries or

7

agencies, subordinate units or levels of government, semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations, area-wideregional or functional authorities or non-governmental privateor voluntary organisation.

Smith (1985:1) sees “decentralisation as the delegation ofpower to lower levels in a territorial hierarchy, whether thehierarchy is one of governments within a state or officeswithin a large-scale organisation”. Smith’s (1985) view doesnot recognise ‘functionally-based delegation’ (re-delegatingan authority within a particular function), a conception thatmight not find favour with Rondinelli (1981).

According to Olowu (2001), decentralisation is a relative,complex and multidimensional process. It is relative in thatit describes the distribution of state resources(responsibility, finance, personnel or discretionaryauthority) between various institutional actors within thestate and/or society against some normative mode in space ortime.

It is a complex process in that it incorporates and isimpacted upon by political, economic, institutional andcultural factors. Moreover, programmes of decentralisation area mixture of centralization, privatization, deconcentrationand in some cases devolution.

Finally, decentralisation is a multidimensional process thatdefines the distribution of power and resources between stateand society, the executive and other branches of thegovernment, at micro level between central and localgovernments, central government and their fieldadministrations, central/local governments and non-governmental entities, as well as at higher levels betweengovernmental units within a federal or international system.

8

Maddick (1966) defines decentralisation as the delegation ofauthority adequate for discharge of specified functions tostaff of a central department who are situated outside theheadquarters. Given the rationale behind this concept, it isnot surprising that various attempts have been made in somedeveloping countries to create decentralised institutionalframework.

Thus, decentralisation is seen as complementing the processand functions that are naturally centralized.

In such a framework as Maddick (1966) puts it, localauthorities provide the opportunity for local people toparticipate in local decision and local schemes within generalnational policies and to act above all as local centres ofinitiative

Activity conducive to development from close association withthe people of a particular area arises a detailedunderstanding not only of their needs, but also of the long-term potentials of the area.

The planning of this potential development can be carried outin far greater detail by the people in the area, who areprimarily and particularly concerned with its welfare.

The above view lends support to the argument that there is aneed to create a development oriented decentralised frameworkwhich will enable local government institutions to organiseand ensure the maintenance of development projects createdthrough local initiative.

Undoubtedly, such a framework will provide the tools for localauthorities to make worthwhile contributions at local leveltowards national development.

The concept of decentralisation to foster development frombelow may take the form of an institutional framework within

9

which local authorities and other decentralised bodies wouldprovide the essential support needed to promote social andeconomic development throughout the entire nation.

Nsarko (1964) shares the view that every state in the worldtoday has a system of local government. The form it takesdepends on the nature of the society in which it works and theconception of the people it serves. However, one principle iscommon: power is given to a local body to carry out functionswithin the locality.

The nature of power ceded to lower levels of governmentdetermines the form of decentralisation being practised. Theforms of decentralisation found in the literature arediscussed in the next section.

Forms of decentralisation

Decentralisation in the literature has also been definedaccording to the degree of delegation and autonomy of localactors, and who these local actors are. It may be categorisedinto territorial and functional decentralisation (UnitedNations, 1965; Rondinelli, 1981; Smith, 1985).

For the purpose of this study, we follow three populartypologies of decentralisation namely; deconcentration,delegation and devolution as identified in Rondinelli andNellis (1986). This typology is based on the degree ofdiscretion and responsibility given to local authorities(Smith, 1985).

Functional decentralisation refers to a shift in thedistribution of powers between various authorities thatoperate in parallel.

In some countries, a single ministry of education isresponsible for all aspects of public education. A move tosplit such a body into the ministry of basic education and a

10

separate ministry of higher education could be calledfunctional decentralisation.

Territorial decentralisation, in contrast, refers to aredistribution of control among different geographic tiers ofgovernment such as nations, states/provinces, districts andschools. Here, there is a transfer of power from higher tolower levels (Bray, 2003).

Three forms of decentralisation are focused on in this reviewmainly for two reasons.

First, they are closely related to one another conceptually:they belong to the generic form of decentralisation that canbe referred to as intergovernmental or intra-governmentaldecentralisation.

While market decentralisation or privatisation may be relatedin some sense to efforts to decentralise, they raise severalother issues relating to the management of national economiesthat are beyond the scope of this review. Second, and moreimportantly, these three concepts are usually referred to ingovernment policy documents on decentralisation, especially inAfrican countries (Rondinelli, 1981; Smith, 1985).

In discussing forms of decentralisation, there are someimportant issues that are discussed in the literature.

Firstly, one must distinguish between the natures of powerthat is being transferred and therefore classify the functionsthat the ‘decentralised unit’ can effectively perform.Secondly, it is important to consider the institutional natureof the decentralised unit, in order to differentiate betweenthe extents of control that the central government, continuesto exercise over the decentralised unit.

Asibuo (1992) reiterates this concern by explaining thatdifferent approaches to decentralisation are distinguishableprimarily by the extent to which authority to plan, decide and

11

manage is transferred from the central government to other up-country organisations and the amount of autonomy granted tothese organisations in carrying out such task.

Deconcentration is a form of decentralisation that involvesonly a minimum power transfer. It involves the shifting ofworkload from a central government ministry to its field staffwithout transferring corresponding authority to make decisionon the spot (Asibuo, 1992). It is a redistribution of routineadministrative functions between offices dependent on thecentral government

(Alfonso, 2001). It refers to the dispersion of activities,previously carried out by the central government, to localbodies, while the centre retains control over decision-makingso that local officials remain accountable to the centraladministration.

As a result, local authorities are able to make very fewdecisions without referring to the centre. The centre retainsbasic decision making powers in this limited horizontaldistribution of functions.

According to Olowu (1988), the primary objective ofdeconcentration is the efficiency and effectiveness of thecentral administrative system, whereas the primaryconsideration of devolution is political-popular participationand empowerment.

Deconcentration (or administrative decentralization) is saidto occur when powers are devolved to appointees of the centralgovernment in the local arena. In contrast, politicaldecentralisation (also called democratic decentralisation)involves the transfer of power to actors or institutions thatare accountable to the population in their jurisdiction.

Delegation refers to the transfer of decision-making authorityfrom the central administration to local authorities for pre-defined activities. It usually involves the distribution of

12

fiscal resources to the local level, accompanied by specificinstructions about their allocation.

Since the central administration retains the power of re-allocating resources, this form of decentralisation has someof the characteristics of a principal agent relationship, withthe central government as the principal and the localgovernments as the agents.

None of the units to which powers are either ‘deconcentrated’or ‘delegated’ are elected institutions. They also do not havepowers to reformulate policies that affect their status orposition within the broader decision-making structure, and canonly take decisions on subjects transferred to them.

Devolution refers to the transfer of significant fiscal andallocative decisions to local authorities who gain fullresponsibility for them, with no interference from the centraladministration (Mawhood, 1983; Olowu, 1988; Anderson, 1995).The issue most discussed in the decentralisation literature isthe concept of devolution. This type of decentralisation isqualitatively different from the previous two because localauthorities gain virtually complete control over resourceallocation and generally become accountable to localconstituencies which should increase decision-makingresponsiveness to local needs.

Devolving powers to lower levels involves the creation of arealm of decision-making in which a variety of lower-levelactors can exercise a certain degree of autonomy (Booth, 1985;Smoke, 1993).

However, decentralisation cannot be classified into watertightcompartments because in practice, public administrationsystems reveal a mixture of both elements - devolution and deconcentration.

Decentralisation that treats local accountability anddiscretionary powers centrally is commonly referred to as

13

political decentralisation. If local authorities, whetherappointed or elected, are made accountable to their superiors,the resulting reform can be termed deconcentration.

This is because elections and funding arrangements are oftenstructured so as to make elected officials upwardlyaccountable. When powers are transferred to lower-level actorswho are downwardly accountable, even when they are appointed,the reform is tantamount to political decentralisation.

Critical to understanding the process, then, is an empiricalexamination of the structures of accountability in whichactors are located (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999).

The ability of accountable local authorities and governmentsto make and implement decisions is in some sense the keyfeature of any effective decentralisation.

This ability, which defines the responsiveness of localauthorities, requires discretionary powers. Accountability orsanction beckons leaders to respond; responsiveness is afunction of discretionary powers (Ribot, 2004).

If local governments always must seek approval from superiorsbefore undertaking an action, their downward accountabilityand ability to respond are attenuated.

Discretionary authority for local governments is an integralpart of responsiveness in any decentralisation reform.

If central governments grant local governments the rights tomake and implement decisions but in practice withholdresources or otherwise check local ability to do so, thendiscretionary powers have not been effectively transferred

Decentralised institutions are viewed as likely to performbetter on the criteria of efficiency and equity for severalreasons. Local authorities are presumed to have better timeand place-specific information which leads to better-targetedpolicies and lower transaction costs (World Bank, 1997).

14

Decentralisation improves competition among jurisdictions andpromotes greater political participation.

By channelling greater benefits to local authorities and localpeoples, decentralisation is believed to provide incentivesfor local populations to maintain and protect local resources.

Bringing government decision-making closer to citizens,through decentralisation, is widely believed to increasepublic-sector accountability and therefore effectiveness (Fox& Agranda, 1996; World Bank, 1997).

These arguments imply that the purported benefits ofdecentralisation are achieved through the establishment “ofdemocratic mechanisms that allow local governments to discernthe needs and preferences of their constituents, as well asprovide a way for these constituents to hold local governmentsaccountable to them” (Smoke, 1999; 10).

When these downwardly accountable local authorities also havediscretionary powers-that is, a domain of local autonomy-oversignificant local matters, there is good reason to believethat the positive outcomes suggested by the previous theorieswill follow (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999).

We can infer, then, that if institutional arrangements includelocal authorities who represent and are accountable to thelocal population and who hold discretionary powers over publicresources, then the decisions they make will likely lead tomore efficient and equitable outcomes in comparison to theoutcomes of decisions made by central authorities that areless representative or accountable.

Fundamentally, decentralisation aims to achieve one of thecentral aspirations of just political governance,democratisation, or the desire that humans should have a sayin their own affairs. In this sense, decentralisation is astrategy of governance to facilitate transfers of power closerto those who are most affected by the exercise of power.

15

According to Conyers (2000:9), most decentralisation effortshave both explicit and implicit objectives. Those objectiveslikely to appeal to the general public, such as localempowerment and administrative efficiency, are generally

Explicitly stated, while less popular ones, such as increasingcentral control and passing the buck, are unlikely to bevoiced.

Benefits of decentralisation

This section of the review focuses on the benefits or outcomesthat decentralization is believed to produce. Whiledecentralisation may or may not result from the pursuit ofthese benefits, the said benefits emerge frequently inpolitical discourse.

“Devolution” and “delegation”, if carried out properly, canmake development programmes effective.

However, decentralisation in developing countries has mostlytaken the form of deconcentration. In Ghana, one major act of“devolution” was the creation of the district assemblies andthe transfer of resources and power to these local governments(Asante &Aryee, 2001).

However, this does not mean that decentralisation has improvedthe efficiency of the administration of rural development. Assuggested by some authors in the literature, the benefits ofsuch decentralisation have been mostly enjoyed by the dominantpower groups

(Mawhood, 1993; Crook & Manor, 1998; Olowu & Wunsch, 1995).According to them, genuine decentralisation of resources andpower cannot take place at the local level unless the entirestructure of development planning changes.

16

In decentralised power structure, plans are formulated by therural people at the grassroots and not imposed from above.

Decentralisation of power can facilitate empowerment ofpeople. Some writers suggest that local communities should beempowered and that this is likely to result in sustainabledevelopment. The features of normal bureaucracy which includecentralisation of authority, especially financial control andstandardisation of rules, recommendations and actions may notfacilitate the empowerment of people. Hence, it is felt thatthe participation of beneficiaries in the formulation,implementation and maintenance of programmes is necessary.

The justification of the local community’s participation isbased on the arguments that local people organize best aroundthe problems they consider most important such as in assessingneeds and finding solutions; local people make rationaleconomic decisions in the context of their own environment andcircumstances providing appropriately for the risks associatedwith the change; and that local participation also ensuresvoluntary commitment of resources and local control over thequality and distribution of benefits.

Participation is currently a key aspect of most discussions ondecentralisation and is often uttered in the same sentence(Balogun, 2000; Sharma, 2000; Engberg-Pedersen, 1995:1).

Participation is believed to make plans more relevant, givepeople more self-esteem, and to help legitimise the planningprocess and the state as a whole (Conyers, 1990:16).Decentralisation is argued for on the grounds that ‘publicparticipation and citizen involvement in programmes is a goodin and of itself’ (Menizen-Dick & Knox, 1999:5).

Participation of rural populations has become a core principlein natural resource management, and more recentlydecentralisation has become a commonly cited means ofachieving it. Participatory approaches to natural resource

17

management are lauded for their potential contribution toeconomic efficiency, equity and development just as isdecentralisation writ large. These accolades, however, need tobe taken with caution.

While intuitively obvious, there is little empirical evidenceto support these claims. Rural communities are usually highlydifferentiated by class, caste, livelihood, gender, age,religion, race, origins, and ethnicity.

While planners have treated communities as uniform in thepast, this is rarely the case (Painter et al. 1994; Agrawal,1997; Berry, 1989; 1993; Sharpe, 1998; Ribot, 1995; 1998).

It is due to this diversity that questions of communityrepresentation arise. Achieving many of the equity,efficiency, environment and development benefits ofparticipation is predicated on devolving decision-makingpowers and responsibilities to some individual or bodyrepresenting or within the local community.

This requires representative and accountable authorities orgroups to whom powers can be devolved or the need to createsuch authorities.

Decentralisation, even in its devolutionary form, is not apanacea, however. Although some forms of decentralisation mayimprove equity within regions, they may worsen it acrossregions. Cross-regional equity can only be addressed by acentral government with re-distributive powers. Indeed,decentralisation without some type of central government re-distributive formula would probably exacerbate existingregional inequalities

Decentralisation and local governance

As part of the emerging concerns of ‘good governance,’ thepolicy of devolution of power and authority to sub-nationalgovernments, commonly referred to as ‘decentralisation,’ has

18

been popularised in developing countries and many aid agenciessupport it.

Decentralisation is a gradual process and is expected toenhance the opportunities for participation by placing morepower and resources at a closer, more familiar, and moreeasily influenced level of government.

In environments with poor traditions of citizen participation,decentralisation is perceived to be an important first step increating regular, predictable opportunities for citizen-stateinteraction.

Within Africa, decentralisation has also been opted for as asolution to political challenges that seem to threatennational cohesion. Countries with a history of linguistic,ethnic, tribal, and religious tensions have often found thefederal approach to national governance as most suited fornational harmony.

Despite the political ideals around decentralisation, however,African political systems show little record of success inthis sphere. To understand why this is so, a number offundamentals ought to be appreciated.

Irrespective of the political pronouncements in favour ofdecentralisation, a given country’s laws, rules andregulations that govern the interaction of various actors inthe political arena significantly influence the nature of therelationships that emerge and whether those relationshipsadhere to the people’s defined norms of good governance.

Good governance, a canon that is associated withdecentralisation, is also about power and authority. Althoughpeople are the means and the end of development, they havedifferent amounts of power and resources, and differentinterests. In nearly all societies, the needs and preferencesof the wealthy and powerful are well reflected in official

19

policy goals. But this is rarely true of the poor and themarginalised, who struggle to get their voices heard. And yetdemocracy, in general, and decentralisation, in particular,must accommodate the interests of the majority and minority,the poor and the rich, the privileged and the disadvantaged.

In the above context, a government that ignores the needs oflarge sections of the population in setting and implementingpolicy is not perceived to be a capable government

The legal framework for local Governance

The main features of the decentralisation policy are enshrinedin chapter 20 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic ofGhana. It states that: “Ghana shall have a system of localgovernment and administration which shall as far aspracticable, be decentralised’’. The legal basis for theimplementation of decentralisation was further broadened byrevising PNDC Law 207, 1988 into the Local Government Act (Act462 of 1993). Other legislative provisions that facilitatedthe implementation of the decentralisation policy included:

Civil Service Law, 1993 (PNDC Law 327);

The District Assemblies Common Fund Act 1993 (Act 455).

The National Development Planning Commission Act 1994(Act 479);

The National Development Planning Systems Act, 1994 (Act480);

The Local Government (Urban, Zonal and Town Council andUnit Committees) Legislative Instrument of 1994, LI1589; and

Financial Administration Act 2003 (654)

20

Local Government Service Act 2003 (656)

Internal Audit Agency Act 2003 (Act 658)

Public Procurement Act 2003 (Act 663)

PROBLEMS OF DECENTRALISATION

The problems confronted in the process of decentralization andstrengthening local government are familiar and confront allAfrican countries. Ahwoi (2010) stated that “many of theproblems that confront local government and decentralizationefforts in Africa generally have fortunately been overcome inGhana’s programme for local government reform anddecentralization implementation”.

Nevertheless, they bear recapping because they could easilyrecur and because some of them linger on in the form ofproblems or near problems occasioned by the reform programme.

The following problems in AGONA WEST district deserve seriousattention for the potentially worthwhile lessons for otherdistrict assemblies in Ghana.

Our interaction with the workers in the assembly reviews that:

Most of the local government laws are vague, unclear anduncertain.

The organizational structures are diffused and the rolerelationships and lines of authority are ill defined.

Consequently, officials lack sufficient understanding oflocal government reforms and of the roles expected ofcouncillors and the district bureaucrats.

21

Owing to the above problems, there are always conflictingissues concerning who is to perform what roles and this hasbrought about low development because most of the projects areleft out.

Again the research reveals that there was not enoughpreparatory grounds work for the reform. Central governmentreformers often do not correctly assess the functionalcapacity of local authorities to which functions are to betransferred.

Local authorities may not be ready or capable to manage suchfunctions, or the functions are transferred to the localauthority but they are performed or managed ineffectively.

Furthermore, stakeholders are often not involved in the designand structure of the reforms. As a result, when they areintroduced such reforms look alien or appear as foreignimposition, which makes their acceptability and implementationdifficult. Worse, there is often inadequate or no training toprepare stakeholders for the reforms.

In an interview with the workers reveal to the researcher thatthe problem that they face as a result of the decentralisationis the lack of trained and experienced personnel.

This problem stem from the fact that the human resourceavailable to local government are hardly trainable, also thelocal government training institutions are unable to satisfythe training needs of the local government and the last issueabout inadequate trained personnel is the fact that the imageof the local government is very poor therefore making itunattractive to attract qualified personnel.

This poses a great challenge to AGONA WEST district assemblyto successfully implement its project and programmes which atend defeat the assembly’s core function of eradicating povertyand hunger

22

Another problem that the assembly faces has to do withinadequate financial resources. The argument is that thenational cake available to the central government is woefullyinadequate to share, and these restrict what can be madeavailable to local government.

It also conceded that no matter how small, the portion madeavailable to local government is even smaller.

Central government controls the fattest and juiciest parts ofthe small cake, and leaves for local government the tiniestand most difficult to collect taxes.

Awhoi (2010) supported the above assertion when he opined that

taxes such as customs duties, excise duties, income tax, and

value added tax which are elastic and easily paid are

appropriated by central government whereas inelastic and

regressive taxes such as property rate, basic rate (poll tax)

and market tolls are the ones left for local government to

collect. It is this phenomenon that result in the over-

dependence of local government on central government grants,

and that enables central government to establish a

stranglehold control over local governments.

Aside the above, Awhoi identifies another four factors that

are responsible for the local government’s inadequate

financial resources

23

Local dwellers are mostly poor and cannot afford to pay

the local taxes

The small size of the local government units make it

difficult to spread the tax net to be able to mobilise

more revenue

Undue delay in the release of approved budgetary

allocation by the central government

Invariably, too many functions are required to be

performed by local government with too little resources.

The above problems truly reflected the researcher’s interview

when the coordinating officer and chief executive officer

shown some pictures of abandoned project attributing it to the

fact that taxes that are left to them to collect as internally

generated funds are actually not fetching the needed funds for

the developmental project in their jurisdiction.

The researcher’s quest to ascertain much needed information on

the problems the assembly is facing concerning the

decentralisation concept, he came across another big problem

thus corruption and other financial malpractices.

24

Corruption at both central and local government levels is a

major challenge to the assembly (local government) as it

restricts the resources available both before and after

sharing between central and local government.

Incidences of corruption in local government arise when more

resources are released to local governments than there are

functions to perform or undertake.

In such situations, excess resources are simply dissipated

through corruption and other financial malpractice. Another

result of miss-matched allocations of functions to local

government is inefficiency when there are not enough resources

to perform functions. Annual reports of the Auditor General on

the accounts of District Assemblies are replete with numerous

instances of financial malpractice and corruption, such as

payments in millions to companies for contracted work not

completed, overpayments, payments without records,

embezzlement, misappropriation, irregular procurements, tax

irregularities and violations of financial rules, regulations

and instructions.

25

Lastly the research also review that another brow to theassembly as far as the decentralisation is concern is apathy.Citizens do not take much interest in the work of localgovernments; many do not even know what they do. Localgovernment election statistics reveal a much lower voter turn-out compared to central government elections.

CHAPTER THREE

26

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the study area, research paradigm,

research design, study population and sample size and the

sampling procedure used in the study. It also discussed the

research instruments, data collection procedure and data

analysis.

Study area

The study was undertaken at Agona West municipal assembly

Research paradigm

Mixed method approach was adopted in the analysis of the data

Research design

The descriptive survey design was adopted. A descriptivesurvey research is one in which the

Researcher is interested in studying certain characteristics,attitudes, feelings, beliefs,

Motivations, behaviour, opinions, etc. of a group of people oritems (Aborisade, 1977).

In descriptive survey research, the researcher is interestedin studying the characteristics of a population.

Perception, just like attitude, is a hypothetical construct.One can only measure perception

27

through its expression in what a person does and says(Oppenheim, 1992).

Thus, inference is given as the main tool of tappingperception and attitudes (Gatumu 1998).

It was against this background that the descriptive survey waschosen for the study. Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1990) have explained that

descriptive research studies are designed to obtain

information concerning the current status of phenomena. Among

others, the descriptive design was chosen because it has the

advantage of producing good amount of responses from a wide

range of people. Also, in-depth follow-up questions can be

asked and items that are unclear to the respondents can be

explained using descriptive design (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993).

Study population

The population for this study involved institutions and

communities. The institutional level included the management

of the district assembly and community level comprises of

heads of households and chief and elders.

Sample Size and Sampling procedure

The study adopted both probability and non-probability

sampling to select 20 respondents for the study, ten (10) from

28

the assembly’s top management and 5 household heads and 5

chiefs

Research instrument

In this study data were collected through the use of

questionnaires and interviews. A focused group discussion

guide was used to acquire specific answers referring to the

chiefs.

Method of data collection

Both primary data and secondary data were used for the study.

Primary data were derived from answers respondents gave in the

questionnaire and the focus group discussion.

The secondary data were derived from published documents on

the concept decentralization, problems of decentralization in

Ghana and other countries.

Data analyses.

The data collected were edited to ensure consistency in the

responses it was then analysed using Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS)

Ethical Consideration

29

The respondents were sufficiently informed of the kind of

information that was being sought. They were adequately

briefed on the reasons for seeking the information. They were

informed that their participation was voluntary and they had

the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Every effort was made to ensure the confidentiality and

anonymity of the participants

30

CHAPTER FOUR

Research Results and Discussion

This chapter presents the results and discussions emanating

from the study. It covers issues such as meaning of

decentralization and problems of decentralization

Objective one of the study sought to analyze people’s

understanding of decentralization in Agona West Municipal

Assembly

The responses on this matter presented based on the

perceptions of both community members and top management

of the assembly.

Table 1

Meaning Community Top management Total

31

members

Freg.

%

Freg

%

Freg

%

1. Bringing

governance to

the door step

of stake

holders

2

10%

6

30%

8

40%

2.

Participation

of all

stakeholders

at local level

3

15%

3

15%

6

30%

3. I have

heard about it

but do not

know what it

means

5

25%

1

5%

6

30%

Sample size(n) = 20

Source field data, 2014

These responses from the respondents corroborate the

traditional authorities understanding of decentralization.

According to the traditional authority, decentralization means

32

“Development for an area is planned and executed by the

local people”

“The local people decide what their felt needs are and

plan towards achieving them;

Not all respondents had a clear perception of what

constituted decentralization since 30% of the respondents

could not know what decentralization was all about.

Problem of decentralization

Related to the second research question, the study

identifies the problems of the decentralization

Table 2. Problems of decentralization

problems Community

members

Freg.

%

Top management

Freg.

%

Total

Freg

%

1. uncertainand unclearlaws of theassemblies

1

5%

3

15%

4

20%

2. Centralgovernmentcheckscapacity ofassembly

1

5%

2

10%

3

15%

33

beforetransfer offunctions3. trained andexperiencepersonnel

1

5%

2

10%

3

15%

FinancialStatus

1

5 %

2

10%

3

15%Corruption inthe district

1

5%

3

15%

4

20%Interest ofcitizens inthedecentralizationimplementation

1

5%

2

10%

3

15%

On the main objective of the study, the respondents were to

indicate possible challenge/problems to the implementation of

decentralization. It could be seen from the table above that,

both community members and top management responded to the

issue. Twenty respondents responded and of these 14 were the

top management.

The problem most frequently mentioned were, unclear and

uncertain laws in the district assembly (15%) and corruption

(15%)

34

The chiefs and the household heads were also of the view that

corruption is in the district as well as people showing apathy

toward the assembly’s decentralization implementation.

CHAPTER 5

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation.35

The study set out to examine the problems facing the

assemblies (Decentralization) in Ghana today. Relevant

literature was reviewed to inform the researchers about the

current thinking on the concept of decentralization. It was

found out that most writers on decentralization and governance

were of similar opinion; the study also unearthed problems

facing assembly’s decentralization.

The study adopted the descriptive survey research design. The

instruments used for the study were questionnaires and focused

group discussion guide. A combination of purposive and simple

random sampling techniques was employed to select twenty (20)

respondents for the study.

The main findings of the study are:

It is surprising to note that even though the

education level of the respondents (community

members) was low but they had some form of

understanding about decentralization.

36

Corruption, uncertain and unclear laws, inadequate

trained and experienced personnel, improper grounds

work by central government before transferring

functions to the district were found by the

respondents as the main problems facing assembly’s

decentralization.

Conclusion.

The respondents have deeper understanding of

decentralization

Decentralization faces a major problem.

Recommendation

In the light of the forgoing findings and conclusions of

the study, the researcher wishes to make the following

recommendation

Transparency and accountability should be

encouraged. Political appointments should be

abolished and all district positions made elective.

This would make the elected more accountable and

responsible.

37

Central government should help train workers at the

District Assemblies in other for them to become

efficient and effective.

District assembly’s common fund should be release on

time and central government should monitor what the

funds are used for.

REFERENCES

Ahwoi, K. (2010). local government and decentralisation inGhana. Unimax Macmillan, Accra, ghana

38

Agrawal, A. (1997). Community in Conservation: Beyond Enchantmentand Disenchantment. Draft of Conservation and DevelopmentForum Working Paper No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Asibuo, S.K. (1999). Financial capacities of the District Assemblies. Paperpresented on A Decade of Decentralisation in Ghana –Retrospect and Prospects, Accra: Institute of Local GovernmentStudies

Book Review: Local Government and Decentralization in Ghana Kwamena Ahwoi (Unimax Macmillan, Accra, Ghana, 2010, pp.282).

Cheema, G. S. & Rondinelli, D. A. (Eds.) (1983).Decentralisationand development: policy implementation in developing countries. SagePublications, Beverly Hills. Cheema, G. S. & Rondinelli, D. A.(1983). Implementing decentralisation policies: Anintroduction’ in G.S. Cheema& D.A. Rondinelli (eds)Decentralisation and Development. London: Sage Publications, 9-34. Conyers, D. (2000). Decentralisation: A conceptual analysis (Part 2). LocalGovernment Perspectives: News and views on local government in Sub-Saharan Africa, 7 (4), 18–24.sHarriss, J., Stokke K. &Törnquist O. (2004). Introduction: the new local politics ofdemocratisation. In: J. Harriss, K. Stokke& O. Törnquist,(eds.), Politicising democracy: The new local politics of democratization,Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–27.

Harold F. Alderfer, (1964). Local Government of developing countries,London McGraw Hill Inc.Hyden, G., Court, J. & Mease, K. (2004).Making sense of governance:Empirical evidence from 16 developing countries. Princeton UniversityPress: Princeton.

Maddick, H. (1966). Democracy, Decentralisation and Development, Bombay:Asia Publishing House. Nsarko, J. K. (1964). Local government in Ghana.Accra: GhanaUniversities Press. Olowu, D. (2001). Local political and institutional structures and processes.Summary report prepared for the UNCDF symposium ondecentralisation and local governance in Africa, Cape Town,

39

South Africa, The Hague, Netherlands: Institute of SocialStudies.

Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government decentralisation incomparative perspective: Theory and practice in developingcountries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 47, 22 – 42.

Smith, B. C. (1985). Decentralisation: The territorial dimension of the state,London: George Allen.

QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is on problems facing assembly’s

decentralisation; The case study at Agona West municipal

assembly as part of term paper for a course (Public

Policy Analysis 1.). You are invited to participate by

responding to the questionnaire or interview schedule

A. Background information (please underline the one

that is applicable)

1. Status of the interviewer ……………………….

2. Sex of respondent (a) Male

(b) Female

3. Level of education (a) No Basic Education

(b) Basic Education

40

(c)Secondary professional (d) Post-

secondary (training college, Nursing) (e) Polytechnic

(f) University

B. Concept of decentralization

4 What is your understanding of decentralization?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

C. Participation in the decentralisation process

5. What are the current roles being played by your

community in decentralisation process?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

D Problems of the Assembly (please indicate the extent

to which you agree with the following by underlying one

that is applicable)

6. Laws governing Assembly’s decentralisation are unclear

and uncertain

41

(A)Agree (B) Strongly Agree (C)

Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree

7 Central government checks capacity of the assembly

before transferring functions (A) Agree (B)

Strongly agree (C) Disagree (D)

Strongly Disagree

8 The Assembly has sound financial stands (A) Agree

(B) Strongly Agree

(C) Disagree (D) strongly disagree

9. The assembly has experienced and trained personnel (A)

agree (B) Strongly agree (C) Disagree (D)

strongly disagree

10. Corruption in all forms exist in the municipality

(A) Agree (B)Strongly agree (C) Disagree (D)

Strongly disagree

11. Citizens show interest in the implementation of the

decentralisation in the municipality (A) Agree (B)

Strongly agree (C) Disagree (D) Strongly Disagree

42

FOCUSSED GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR CHIEFS AND HEADS OF

HOUSEHOLDS

1. What is your understanding about decentralisation

process?

2. To what extent is the concept decentralisation beingpractised in the municipality?

3. What is your understanding of good governance?

4. What are the challenges of good governance in themunicipality?

5. Are you involved in the decision making process

6. Are there any challenges to the implementation ofthe decentralisation?

43

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENTS

PAGE NUMBERS

Background to the study

1-3

Statement of the problem

3

Objectives of the study

3

Research question

4

Literature Review

5-17

Study area

18

44

Research paradigm

18

Research design

18-19

Study population

19

Sample size and sampling procedure

19

Research instrument

19

Method of data collection

19

Data analysis

19

Ethical consideration

19-20

Research results and discussions

21-23

Summary,conclusion,and recommendation

24-2545

References

26-29

46