Zizek

Democratic Decentralisation andForum forReduction: Exploring the Linkages 159
Poverty Development Studies | No. 2-2003

Democratic Decentralisation
and Poverty Reduction: Exploring the
Linkages
Trond Vedeld
1. Introduction

Democracy and decentralisation are often assumed to be critical
preconditions for efficient poverty reduction and development.1 This
is based among others on anassumption about the state as a large,
centrally located and top-down bureaucracy representing an ineffective means of allocating resources within society. Democratic
decentralisation, according to the argument, brings government
closer to the governed in both spatial and institutional terms and
makes government more exposed and responsive (Crook and
Sverrisson, 2001:1; World Bank, 2000a/b). Inturn, this is assumed
to create systems of governance that are more effective in reaching the poor – and in particular the rural poor – many of whom
reside in remote areas outside effective market reach and with
little purchasing power (Blair, 2000; Manor, 1999; Crook and Manor,
1998). However, democratic decentralisation in developing countries has more often than not been associated with a‘rolling back
of the state, the extension of bureaucratic control, and the
marketization of social services’ (Heller, 2001: 132; Crook, 2003).
It has been designed in fairly technocratic and top-down manners
1

A previous version of this article was presented to the NFU Annual Conference,
Politics and Poverty , in Oslo, 23–24 October 2003. The work has been carried
out with support of theNIBR and the Research Council of Norway, as well as
with funds from the World Bank, Asia Department, provided under Norwegian
Technical Assistance Grants (with Ruth Alsop, as World Bank Task Manager).
Conceptually, the article is particularly inspired by Heller (2001); see also
Johnson (2001) and Crook (2003).The author has supplemented the literature
review with limited field-visits to India,Mali and Uganda. I am grateful for
useful comments from two anonymous referees.

NUPI DECEMBER 03

160 Trond Vedeld

with limited poverty reducing effects. Cross-country evidence referred to in this article suggests that the argument above conflates
decentralisation with democratisation and greater accountability
and participation at local level. The literature suggests that it is onlyunder certain benign conditions – for example, when extended
participation or accountability mechanisms are adopted – that
decentralisation will work to respond to local demand and reduce
poverty (Crook, 2003).
This article is organised in three key sections. First, it explores
the nature of linkages between democracy, decentralisation and poverty reduction – and introduces the particularlinkages to be examined and why. In so doing, the article illustrates the key problems
faced by a country when making the initial transition to procedural
democracy and, in turn, trying to make democracy work and matter
for the majority of (poor) people. Second, through a review of the
literature, the article examines the problems and constraints that are
likely to limit the impact of democraticdecentralisation on poverty
reduction (or make things even worse). Third, the article presents
a few country cases as relative ‘success stories’, and synthesises
possible preconditions for such success.2 These conditions are worth
building on when pursuing more pro-poor democratic decentralisation. Key arguments are underscored through a comparison of the
illustrative country cases with thehistoric experiment of building
local government and democratic systems in Scandinavia.
Democratic decentralisation is defined as transfer of powers
and resources to authorities representative of and downwardly
accountable to local populations (Manor, 1999). Democratic decentralisation is considered an institutionalised form of a participatory
approach to development (Ribot, 2002).
This...