1.1 History and track records of decentralisation reforms

Countries have adopted constitutions and laws providing for sub-national elections, some degree of autonomy and revenue sharing.

There is a major gap between the legal framework and practice. Competences are devolved without adequate resources. Revenue sharing remains very low and hampered by numerous conditions.

The institutional landscape has changed profoundly by the emergence of a local public sector.

Many countries do not yet have an effective intergovernmental system which adequately integrates the local public sector and fosters inter-agency cooperation in the delivery of public goods and services.

Within this local public sector, LAs seek to become autonomous actors with their own identity as a representative of a political community, legitimacy and added value in development.

Many LAs have been appropriated by local elites and/or are characterised by weak governance, low institutional density and overall fragility. Countries often opt for a managerial type of LA limited to executing tasks conferred by the central government.

New LAs have appeared with an interest in local development, wealth creation and accountable management of public affairs.

Progressive LAs which are eager to expand their autonomy and promote local development tend to encounter fierce resistance from politicians, sector ministries or traditional authorities. They are seldom recognised as distinct political entities, including by donor agencies, which tend to bypass them in their budget support operations or other programmes.

Decentralisation has stimulated citizens to engage in local public policymaking, budget processes and service delivery.

Lack of effective service provision hampers LA legitimacy and reduces citizen willingness to engage or pay taxes. Frameworks for local participation are often dominated and utilised by the power holders to foster their interests.

Civil society organisations invest in local governance and in building legitimate and capable LAs.

Conflict rather than cooperation often characterises civil society organisation–LA relations. Civil society initiatives often bypass LAs or interfere in the competences conferred to them. The societal demand for decentralisation is often limited.

LAs have organised themselves in associations at different levels (global, regional, national) to preserve, protect and promote the local dimension of development and LA prerogatives.

The dominance of central powers remains high. In several countries, a recentralisation of competences is taking place. The independence of LA associations is often compromised by national party politics.