Local governance
Local governanceBy Caroline Katotobwe-Mukuka
Friday February 16, 2007 [02:00]
Zambia faces many hurdles in the field of fiscal local governance. The decentralisation initiatives that have taken shape in Zambia have generally failed to realise the desired impact principally because the necessary fiscal resources have not been transferred from the centre at the same time that power, functions, authority and responsibilities have been devolved and/or de-concentrated, a phenomenon that has resulted in unfunded mandates.
Moreover, the central government not only determines the level of transfers to local governments but, importantly, much of what is transferred is conditional grant. Although the former government of Chiluba claimed to pursue a decentralised mode of service delivery, the state of fiscal transfers to councils consisted mainly of conditional, recurrent expenditure grants.
Although councils are, by legislation, entitled to a share of national sales tax, this is rarely disbursed. Thus, on average local governments receive meager amounts of the total central government expenditure, a very insignificant share by any standards.
Even more revealing, in a country with 72 local authorities/councils, two of them (the cities of Lusaka and Ndola) received more than 90 per cent of central government transfers to sub-national governments over the 1995-1998 period and the situation has not changed since.
And yet the neediest areas (where poverty is highest) are elsewhere in the remote rural Zambia. In addition, most of the flows from central government to councils in Zambia are effected on a case-by-case basis and in response to cash crises as they emerge. The small size of the funds made available and delays in releasing them have always led to intense frustration within the local government system in the country.
The frustration is compounded by lack of information made available to councils about funding policy, the amounts available for distribution from various sources, the criteria/formula adopted in disbursing grants, the reasons for the delay in releasing funds, and an indication of when funds expected to become available would arrive. The central government grants unpredictability regarding the timing of disbursement has rendered local governments proper planning and utilisation of the scarce fiscal resources difficult, if not impossible.
Notwithstanding the above realities, Zambia should find ways in which central and local governments can restructure or reform their institutions so as to facilitate the development of the civil society.
What factors are required for a viable, democratic, local government?
This is an important question for several reasons. In an era of continuing economic problems and structural adjustment, our central government has been forced to reduce the services it provides. While the private sector may pickup some of these, collective and non-profit-earning social goods must be delivered or funded by local governmental units if they are to be provided at all.
Highly centralised and top-down service delivery is expensive, cumbersome, adapts slowly to new information, and is prone to political abuse. Democracy, for all we know, must be rooted in functioning local, participatory self-governance institutions.
The Zambian local governance and democracy has failed in virtually every place it has been tried. The problems are mainly rooted in specific policy choices and strategies pursued by our central government.
These policies include deliberate withholding of resources, whether fiscal or juridical, from local entities for political or ideological reasons, central bureaucratic hostility and weakness, turbulent economic and policy environments which have undercut local institutions, absence of complimentary reforms needed in national administrative law and systems and underdeveloped local civil societies.
Revenue sources for local governments are not so extensive. To local officials, this is a difficult situation when they feel they are obligated to provide services (street maintenance, refuse collection), but cannot collect taxes on those persons and businesses using these services.
The reasons for this are unclear, but lack of political will and administrative weakness are both likely explanations, and overall these are in severe deficit. An important element in ensuring the sustainability of local governments would be the involvement of the various stakeholders in both the decision-making and implementation processes. Such involvement would be expected to pool together locally available resources, experiences, creativity and energies of a diversity of partners and stakeholders.
One lesson that need to be learnt is that although decentralisation should, under the right conditions, provide considerable benefits to a country through the enhancement of local governance, it can, if mismanaged, further marginalise minority groups, and make worse income inequalities.
If this inconsistency is to be better managed, it would be necessary for the central government to understand the conditions that need to prevail to facilitate successful fiscal decentralisation, and how the absence of these conditions could undermine efforts towards improved local governance. An enabling and clear constitutional, legislative and regulatory framework is important for improved local governance to the extent that it provides a fairly understood division of responsibilities between the various levels of government and civil society and clarifies the relationship between these levels.
Our government is currently faced with the tension between the desire to create autonomous local structures that are accountable to their local constituencies, on the one hand, and the wish to exercise central control on the other.
In this regard, it is imperative that the government addresses the challenge of balancing these somewhat contradictory realities in a manner that recognises both the virtue of delegation of power, authority and resources to lower levels and the importance of realising the commonplace goals of national development as defined by central authorities.
In general, local management in Zambia lacks resources, authority, and effective local political processes, hence is performing poorly.
Local management is weak and few services are being delivered.
However, local governments are in place and supposedly functioning, and if nurtured may be expected over time to improve in their performance.
Much progress is needed in the performance of our local governments. Revenues must be expanded, personnel upgraded, fiscal and personnel management systems strengthened, town councils developed, ties to communities enhanced, services rationalised and upgraded, and the like.
But a framework for local governance has to be put in place by electing local officials, outlining some limited local responsibilities, and by establishing at least a basic cadre of professional personnel.
This is the minimum framework necessary to build on for future progress.
Key investments need to be made now in developing local cadres and administrative systems in order to carry on decentralisation. Without these investments, stagnation and regression will continue prevailing.
Labels: DECENTRALIZATION, GOVERNANCE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT
posted by MrK @ 6:55 AM
1 Comments:
Wow, wow and wow again. The reason I keep coming back to Local Government, is because almost all the services we expect from the state, are delivered locally, not centrally. Drivers licences, IDs, garbage collection, education, policing are all best done by local people, working for local government. What is needed is a system where Local Government has four basic tasks: education, healthcare, policing, public amenities (and basic administrative tasks like vital data collection, marriage licenses, etc.).
I would make the ZRA a much more important organisation, clean out the corruption, and have them collect revenues and make them available to every local government unit - no interference by any corrupt minister or president. This should be written into the constitution, so no politician can do away with it. Expenditures should be monitored by the ZRA, and should be
The way this can be done, is by setting aside 1/3 to half of nationally collected revenues so that every 30,000 people can be assigned one local government unit, which will have a budget of $1mn per year - that is 350 units for a total of $350 million out of collected revenues of $1100 million (in 2004).
The required $350 million would be freed up by closing down half the existing central government ministries (all 29 or so of them down to 10), eliminating duplication and political positions, and by digitizing payments and other measures that cut back on the massive corruption and inefficiency that characterize central government ($250 million lying idle in Zambian government accounts, when teachers and retirees have not been payed?).
Efficiency and lack of corruption are possible when money and payments are monitored every step of the way. Digitalisation is the key to that. As is of course integrity on behalf of the person implementing the program.
Local Government is THE WAY of providing the people with basic services. This should become an international issue. Donor groups should be involved in publicising it, NGOs should become involved. Local Government is THE WAY to store food and fuel, provide food aid in times of hardship. Let us get all these international organisations to put pressure on the government to start spending this way. They seem to be making a point of not listening to the people.
Government should be service delivery oriented (with an empasis on hiring teachers, nurses, police officers, garbage collectors) instead of administration and control oriented (hiring ministers, deputy ministers, permanent secretaries, district commissioners, administrators, etc.).
I also find it shocking that it is the capital and Ndola, which get 90% of state money for local governemnt.
This is what has to change.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home