Redecentralisation

This book, which is the eighth volume in the 12-volume book series Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, presents scholarly research on major discourses in decentralisation, school-based management (SBM) and quality in education globally. This book, which focuses on decentralisation and SBM as a governance strategy in education, presents theoretical aspects of the phenomenon of decentralisation/privatisation and contextualises them within the education research literature. It provides an easily accessible, practical yet scholarly source of information concerning the dynamics of decentralisation and SBM that normally take place when reforms are instituted to decentralize authority and power. Above all, the authors offering the latest findings regarding major discourses in dec- tralisation, SBM and quality in educational systems in the global culture emphasise aspects of that dynamic interactive process (see also Geo-JaJa 2006a; Gamage and Sooksomchitra 2006, Zajda 2009). This dynamic interaction in the process that is implicit in the title of the book is reified by calls for restructuring of schools f- lowing the idea that schools are not promoting human rights, social cohesion and sustainable development. The chapters as a source book of ideas for researchers, practitioners and policy makers in decentralisation and SBM in education contr- ute to the educational literature while enhancing the understanding of the larger dynamics involved in educational reform. It offers a timely overview of current issues affecting decentralisation in education in the global culture.

With special reference to India.

Over the past three decades the developing world has seen increasing devolution of political and economic power to local governments. Decentralization is considered an important element of participatory democracy and, along with privatization and deregulation, represents a substantial reduction in the authority of national governments over economic policy. The contributors to Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries examine this institutional transformation from comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives, offering detailed case studies of decentralization in eight countries: Bolivia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa, and Uganda. Some of these countries witnessed an unprecedented "big bang" shift toward comprehensive political and economic decentralization: Bolivia in 1995 and Indonesia after the fall of Suharto in 1998. Brazil and India decentralized in an uneven and more gradual manner. In some other countries (such as Pakistan), devolution represented an instrument for consolidation of power of a nondemocratic national government. In China, local governments were granted much economic but little political power. South Africa made the transition from the undemocratic decentralization of apartheid to decentralization under a democratic constitution. The studies provide a comparative perspective on the political and economic context within which decentralization took place, and how this shaped its design and possible impact. Contributors Omar Azfar, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Pranab Bardhan, Shubham Chaudhuri, Ali Cheema, Jean-Paul Faguet, Bert Hofman, Kai Kaiser, Philip E. Keefer, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Justin Yifu Lin, Mingxing Liu, Jeffrey Livingston, Patrick Meagher, Dilip Mookherjee, Ambar Narayan, Adnan Qadir, Ran Tao, Tara Vishwanath, Martin Wittenberg

The report presents a diagnosis of Portugal multi-level governance in international perspectives and highlights the strengths and challenges of the system. It then presents three potential policy paths of regional reform for Portugal. As the options are not mutually exclusive, they could work as complements to each other. The report analyses the conditions under which the reforms may deliver more economic efficiency and regional equity.

Can autocrats establish representative subnational governments? And which strategies of manipulation are available if they would like to reduce the uncertainty caused by introducing political decentralisation? In the wake of local government reforms, several states across the world have introduced legislation that provides for subnational elections. This does not mean that representative subnational governments in these countries are all of a certain standard. Political decentralisation should not be confused with democratisation, as the process is likely to be manipulated in ways that do not produce meaningful avenues for political participation and contestation locally. Using examples from Africa, Lovise Aalen and Ragnhild L. Muriaas propose five requirements for representative subnational governments and four strategies that national governments might use to manipulate the outcome of political decentralisation. The case studies of Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa, and Uganda illustrate why autocrats sometimes are more open to competition at the subnational level than democrats. Manipulating Political Decentralisation provides a new conceptual tool to assess representative subnational governments' quality, aiding us in building theories on the consequences of political decentralisation on democratisation.

This assessment provides an evidence-based analysis of the ongoing decentralisation reforms in Jordan from the perspective of the principles and practices of open government.

This book analyzes decentralisation, regional development paths and success factors in different governance sectors in Ghana, the Philippines, Tanzania and Chile, and discuss overarching aspects of relevance. Decentralisation, which refers to the delegation of administrative responsibilities, political decision-making and fiscal powers to lower levels of government, is now considered one of the most efficient engines of development. In Sub-Saharan Africa decentralised states have made more progress in reducing poverty than those states with lower decentralisation scores. But in many countries, decentralisation is still considered a ‘work in progress’ with unsatisfactory results. From a spatial point of view, the link between decentralisation and regional and district development is particularly interesting. Both in the North and in the South, regional or district development is seen as holding the potential for advancing social and economic development, and even more so in decentralised political settings. Space-based networks at the regional or district level are considered instrumental for responding to locally specific challenges, e.g. in areas lagging behind economically.