Search results

An attempt will be made to shed light on the course and pattern of the decentralization process by analyzing the historical development of local government and the territorial-administrative reform of 2015-2020 in Albania and the factors that have been shaping it. The scope is to understand the impact of the reform elements on the subnational governments and in general their overall impact on the government. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in the existing literature for Albania and at offering some insights on the administrative-territorial reform. Furthermore, it will contribute to the current debate on fiscal decentralization in South Eastern European (SEE) countries and the public management model implemented after the last reforms.

The first section analyzes the historical development of local government reforms from the 1990s to today and will help to identify if there is instrumentalism advocacy. The second section explains the determinants of the local government’s fiscal autonomy in Albania of the period from 2003 to 2016. Three indicators are used as proxies for fiscal decentralization: the proportion of subnational expenditure over national expenditure, of total subnational revenues over total revenues of central government and the indicator of own subnational revenues over total revenues of the central government. The data from the budget and the revised budgets are then compared.

Despite Albania’s commitment to decentralize its government functions, there is still work to do. The territorial and administrative reform has not generated the expected results. Almost 90 percent of the revenues still come from the central government’s unconditional transfers. Therefore, the Albanian Government should build capacities and skills, and train the employees of each level of government that currently benefit from international assistance.

The analysis represents a single case study on the territorial-administrative reform in Albania. Its implementation started in 2015 and it is probably too early to discuss outcomes. However, it might be useful to analyze the first results after a two-and-a-half-year period of implementation of reforms. Despite contributing to the existing gap in the literature, additional research will be necessary to better understand the decentralization process not only in Albania, but in all SEE countries.

It is necessary to first understand the lack of initial output, as well as the various challenges faced, in order to take the corrective measures on time.

This paper discusses in detail the reform adopted and the progress made by the Albanian local government units. The reform attempts to develop better relationships between the central and local governments and hence improve their service delivery, transparency and accountability. This paper is the first one that is attempting to analyze the initial output of the territorial-administrative reform of 2015-2020.

Decentralization has been a continual focus of attention of both scholars and practitioners for more than half a century. Even though there is a general agreement on what decentralization is, there is no consensus about how it should be measured. This article builds on the existing body of literature that specifies three major dimensions of decentralization: political, administrative, and economic. The article offers a measurement model that unifies these dimensions in a meaningful manner that allows for comparison across countries. The proposed model is then empirically tested using confirmatory factor analysis of a data set of 37 countries over the period 2000-2009. This factor analysis reveals that there are, in fact, only two dimensions of the decentralization process. The newly developed modelʼs index illustrates that the conceptually challenging processes of decentralization can be accurately measured and analyzed. The index can be used for hypothesis testing of the causality role of decentralization.

This paper aims to examine empirically the ways in which workforce knowledge and organisational factors of an implementing agency affected the implementation of health sector administration decentralisation in Ghana with insights from the Nkwanta district health administration.

This is a qualitative study using data from individual and group interviews through purposive selection of health officials, who were directly involved in the work of actual implementation of the programme. Specifically, participants included senior management, middle management and junior workers, who had worked at least for the past three months in the district.

The study found that most of the interviewees involved in the implementation process are knowledgeable of the objectives of the decentralisation process. Also, major factors that are militating against effective decentralisation in the district include inadequate funds, lack of qualified personnel, inadequate logistics and equipment, poor interpersonal relationships, lack of transparency and a good operational system, lack of incentives to motivate the staff, political interference, poor infrastructure and high rate of illiteracy.

The findings of this study will help improve the implementation of decentralisation within the health sector in Ghana. The paper provides recommendations, which, if considered for implementation, will help improve the decentralisation process.

In this paper the sometimes confusing concepts of structural centralization and decentralization and administrative centralization and decentralization are classified. Brief contrast Is made between the Latin American and North American models. It is hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between administrative decentralization and (I) leadership development at lower hierarchical levels, (II) greater participation in the decision‐making process by people at lower hierarchical levels, (III) an increased sense of responsibility, for the final output, by those at lower hierarchical levels, (IV) implementation of innovative changes which are proposed by individuals at lower hierarchical levels, (V) the development of different approaches to solving problems in the various subsystems at lower hier‐archical levels, (VI) the rapidity at which decisions can be made concerning local issues.

The study was designed to investigate the effects of the decentralization of education through the perceptions of education managers.

This was a qualitative case study research. The decentralization notification of 2014, issued by the secondary education department, Government of Balochistan, Pakistan was taken as a case. Some administrative and financial powers were devolved at cluster and district levels through this notification. In pursuance of data collection, focus group discussions were conducted with 20 education managers, 20 teachers, and 5 high-ranked education policy actors. The gathered data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

The study found that the intent of the decentralization move was positive, where some of the issues of teachers are now resolved at district and school levels. However, academic decentralization was utterly neglected. Furthermore, with the inclusion of district administration in the education decision-making, powers seem to be recentralized. The study concluded that decentralization should occur through a proper legislative process based on sound planning. There should be a balance between central authorities and local/district-level education management in education management and decision-making.

The study adds to the existing literature relating to education management and informs education managers, teachers, school principals, and policy actors for research-based and informed decision-making.

This study was conducted in a developing country to understand the effects of decentralized education management. The authors declare the organicity of the data. The authors also declare that the paper has not been submitted to any other journal or in review elsewhere.

Over the past decade most central governments across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have begun to decentralize some fiscal, political, and administrative responsibilities to lower-levels of government, local institutions, and the private sector in pursuit of greater accountability and more efficient service delivery, often in an attempt to solve broader political, social, or economic problems (SARA, 1997). Education, in particular, has been fertile ground for such decentralization efforts. From Ethiopia to South Africa, SSA countries have engaged in some form of education decentralization, though the pace has been quite uneven. Ethiopia, Uganda, Senegal, and South Africa, for example, are proceeding fast, while Ghana, Mali, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe are under way more slowly. Guinea, Niger, Zambia, and Nigeria are at the other end of the continuum. Decentralization of social services, including education appears to be embedded in the political changes occurring in the region. In almost all SSA countries the introduction of decentralized systems are accompanied by popular elections for local councils as part of the general trend of the introduction of or return to democratization.

The purpose of this article is to explore decentralization as a management strategy in university library administration using University Libraries of Calabar, Uyo and Cross River State University as case studies. It examines how effective the different levels of decentralization in a large establishment such as a university library can stabilize the management system and create cohesion, and harmony in spite of problems of communication, coordination and control.

These objectives are achieved through the descriptive survey methodology investigating the implications of a decentralized system of administration in a university library using the instrument of questionnaire.

The finding is that decentralization could make for efficient management in a large establishment such as a university library especially if enhanced by the new technologies.

For further research, this paper suggests investigation into the implications of the assertion that no organization is totally centralized or totally decentralized.

The practical implication of this paper is the fact that there are both centralized and decentralized systems of functions, services and administration in most university libraries. Where a library is totally decentralized, the high executive has no more responsibilities and the library may collapse. Where it is totally centralized, subordinates are alienated and are remote from activities.

Provides the rather paradoxical vision of the internet as a centralized approach towards the enhancement of a decentralized system of administration.

In recent years, there have been major changes in educational governance and the organization and management of primary and secondary education. This is particularly the case as indicated by debates and deliberations over notions of “good governance” and “public management,” accountability, transparency, effectiveness of public services, performance, and the generation of benchmarks and cross-national comparative data. Among these trends is the debate over educational decentralization, which in the past several decades has become a mode of governance strongly advocated by international policy organizations, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural (UNESCO).

The factors which produced an excess of centralisation in Africa are described. The training needs arising from the new emphasis on decentralisation are then outlined. An assessment is made of current training efforts and a programme for future action offered.

Korea is a highly centralized country where most administrative functions are carried out by the central government in Seoul. Increasingly, however, local governments have been given greater autonomy in their operations. This chapter examines how the ideal values of political decentralization have interacted with the country’s local bureaucracy, which inherently has dark side in itself. The focus is on how local government employees have contributed, or responded, to the democratic change of their communities, particularly since the 1980s. At the outset, the experiences of Korea’s decentralization and local autonomy are briefly reviewed. It is then examined how the bureaucrats have played in the process of democratization in terms of three features: bureaucratic power, scope, and culture. Institutionalizing competitive local bureaucracy contributed to reduce the disparity between capital regions (Seoul and its surrounded area) and noncapital regions (locals). Empowering local bureaucracy to allow own localized decision-making process was the first move of Korean governance.