The Power of Institutional Legacies Decentralization in Francophone Africa

1. The Power of Institutional LegaciesDecentralization in Francophone Africa **** May 1st, 2006**** Presentation for: PREM Learning Week Monday, May 1, 2006 12:30-2:00 pm Presented by: Zoé Druilhe, Helene Grandvoinnet Kai Kaiser, Stefanie Teggemann Africa Public Sector Group (AFTPR) Public Sector Group (PRMPS) Poverty Reduction and Economic Management (PREM)

2. Structure of Presentation • A. Institutional Legacies and Development Outcomes • B. State Architectures and Decentralization • Distinguishing Deconcentration/Devolution • Political, Fiscal, Administrative Dimensions • Implications for Accountability • C. Decentralization in Francophone Africa • D. Common institutional legacies? • Territorial Administration/Tutelle • Deconcentrated/Top-down administration • E. What does this imply for how we approach decentralization reforms to achieve development objectives?

3. A. The Power of Institutions • Institutions shape outcomes and paths • North • Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development • Acemoglu, Johnson, Robinson (2001) • Legal Traditions, Finance, and Growth • Roman (rule-based) versus Common Law (“organic”) traditions • LaPorta et. al. (1997, 1998) • Institutional legacies matter for decentralization reforms • Explore nature of institutional legacies, forms, pathways • Understand how these might inform operational work

4. Approach of Stocktaking • Eighteen Francophone Countries • Four in-depth case studies • Burkina Faso • Guinea • Madagascar • Rwanda • BNPP Supported • Collaboration with Local/Regional Researchers

5. Why Decentralization? • If designed well, decentralization can • Move decision making closer to people (subsidiarity principle) • Enhance efficiency and responsiveness of service delivery • Enhance State Legitimacy/Accountability • Foster innovation/competition • Potentially help alleviate poverty • But… • May risk diluting accountability • Local Capture / corruption • Unclear assignment of responsibilities • Lack of Capacity • Human and fiscal resources • Increased Disparities

6. Deconcentration versus Devolution Large variety of state structures and thus accountability models

7. The Accountability Triangle DECONCENTRATION POLICY-MAKERS Local Level

8. C. Decentralization in Francophone Africa • Devolution remains limited in Africa (e.g., fiscal) • Francophone and Lusophone Africa rank particularly low (World Bank, 2002) • History of decentralization in Francophone Africa • Less autonomy under colonization (Direct Rule) • After independence: • Continuation of French public administration system • Strong/Authoritarian States • Wave of decentralization in early 1990s (political liberalization) • And today? • Gradualism • Deconcentration and Decentralization strategies in parallel • Political resistance and lack of political will • Inherited distrust towards decentralization?

9. Political Devolution at the Commune level is incomplete • Communes as building blocks of local government • Full communalization in 11/18 countries • Elections of assembly/council and executive in 11/18

10. State Structure is under construction • Creation of intermediate devolved levels • But communalization is incomplete • Intermediate levels are not devolved • Intermediate levels are rarely operational • Creation of intermediate deconcentrated levels • Administrative parallelism • Lack of rationalization • The Example of Burkina Faso • For years, the state architecture was not clear, while the country was only half communalized. • 1998. Province is deconcentrated and devolved • 2001. Region is deconcentrated and devolved • In 2004, the New Code des Collectivites states that BF has 2 devolved levels (Regions, Communes) and 3 administrative levels (Regions, Provinces, departments)

11. Fiscal Devolution is Limited • Low rates of fiscal devolution (<5% national fiscal rev.) • Transfers are low (or inexistent) and not timely • Transfers rarely transparent, predictable, formula- based • Investment transfers are scarce

12. D. Common institutional legacies? • French Legacy of Centralized State • A uniform, unitary and centralized State • Apparent distrust of decentralization • Prevalence of Tutelle and Territorial Administration • Strong emphasis on rules based controls • Territorial administration (with Préfet playing prominent role) and sectoral deconcentration with different geographical areas • Mixed models of decentralization • Bias for deconcentration over devolution? • Financial Management practices • Human Resource Management practices • Ensuing state structure increases complexity of decentralization => top-down administration impacts incentives and capacity

13. LG autonomy limited by the Tutelle In a majority of countries, the Tutelle system operates ex-ante over LG’s financial decisions

14. Financial Resource Management Characteristics (vs. Anglophone): • Strong involvement of MoF at every step (ordonnateur) • Separation Ordonnateur/Comptable (multiple visas) • System emphasizes ex-ante controls Challenges for decentralization: - Centralization of resources and management • Limited transparency as to spatial incidence of public resources • Weak capacity for budget preparation/execution at local level • Weak ownership, autonomy and accountability at local level • Bottlenecks and opportunities for corruption Decentralization: risks appear higher (amounts/capacity)

15. Human Resource Management Characteristics: • One single scheme of service for all civil servants • Accountability to the center • Post not linked to geographical areas • HRM wholly centralized • recruitment, evaluation, sanction, salaries, career management… Challenges for decentralization: • Capacity often low at local level • Concentration of staff in urban/central areas • Difficulties in attracting/retaining quality staff, notably in remote regions • Low downward accountability of staff • Disincentives for staff to join the LG • Limited trust towards new structures • Living conditions outside capital/urban centers

16. Resulting Complex State Structure Deconcentration and Devolution • Regional experience is varied but tendency to have parallel structures • Dual architectures (territorial, sectoral deconcentration). Sometimes, without coherence between levels Challenges for decentralization: - Proliferation of levels of administration • Confusion or uncertainty on respective roles • High costs of decentralizing if no parallel effort at rationalizing - Perverse incentives • Deconcentration perceived as a leverage towards more decentralization, yet lack of incentives and capacity

17. E. Operational Challenges for Decentralization Reforms • Political interests drive (and shape) decentralization reforms • Strengthening democracy or appeasing opposition? • Greater equity or preventing fragmentation of the state? • Who drives? Champions? Winners and losers (including in bureaucracy) • However, World Bank/donors advice mostly centered on technical aspects • Useful to understand objectives for devolution and deconcentration • Identify and work with champions in government but also ensure consultation, information and participation of local communities in formulation and execution of decentralization policy • Knowledge gaps on both formal/informal practices and local dynamics

18. Operational Challenges for Decentralization Reforms (cont’d) • Deconcentration versus devolution:Accountability and Capacity Matter • No model inherently superior, but need to reinforce accountability and be equipped with sufficient capacity • Devolution offers greater downward accountability; however, if structures are new, not rooted in local context and have little capacity not necessarily effective • Need to strike effective balance between upward and downward accountability • Number of deconcentrated / devolved levels needs to be commensurate with capacity • Too many layers of government is inefficient • Creation of many rural communes has significant cost implications • Need to clarify roles and responsibilities (conventions/contracts), otherwise accountabilities blurred • Sequencing of reforms needs to account for institutional legacies • Leverage both (deconcentrated and devolved levels) to build accountability and capacity • Deconcentrated structures can help build capacity. However, they may be adverse to greater devolution -> Avoid future lock in • Plan ahead for local capacity building and pace reform accordingly

19. Q & A Further Reading Decentralizing Francophone African administrations for better service delivery: specificities, status and challenges , Zoé Druilhe, Hélène Grandvoinnet, Kai Kaiser, Stefanie Teggemann, draft