The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries

Abstract

This paper addresses the arguments in favour of both the decentralization and centralization of public policy making. It points out that the same arguments are sometimes used to advance either claim and that in different countries opposite arguments are used to support the same claim. Clearly, the inherent features of centralization and decentralization are far from obvious. A closer look at the attention given to the issue by political parties at the national level in four European countries reveals that decentralization becomes an issue in these countries at different periods and as a cause of different arguments, which rather reflect the dominant values in the political culture than refer to inherent properties of decentralization itself. An analysis of opinions of local elites points at the relation between their opinion on decentralizing responsibilities in a specific field and the support for existing institutional arrangements, their own influence in the policy field and the predisposition towards decentralization tendencies. This results in the conclusion that the support for decentralization tendencies is more closely related to existing specific institutional arrangements, and to the degree to which it is expected to influence one's own position, than to its inherent merits.

Decentralisation of Health Services in Fiji: A Decision Space Analysis

“…1,[7][8][9][10][11] Decentralisation, in its many forms, seeks to promote a more effective and efficient system aimed at rectifying a topdown bureaucratic structure and improving government responsiveness to the public. 4,8,10,12 Among its many promises, decentralisation aims to bring services closer to people, 8,10,13 improve access to services, 1,8 allow for community participation, 12,14 improve employee morale and turnover 15 and place particular emphasis on improving quality, access and equity, empowering local governments and increasing innovation and efficiency. [8][9][10] However, decentralisation is difficult to implement.…”

Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai

“…1 Governments play a role in decentralizing decision making and policy implementation to achieve diverse goals: among them social development, democratic participation, resource management, and service provision (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001;De Vries, 2000;Willis, Christopher da, & Haggard, 1999). Although decentralization is sometimes seen as a good in itself, decentralizers defend their policy choices more often on grounds of increased efficiency, greater equity, and higher responsiveness of governments to citizen demands.…”

Evaluation of Croatian model of polycentric health planning and decision making

“…Policy development is a political process, thus jeopardized by national and local political changes. [1,12] This limitation was predicted and counteracted by two "anchoring mechanisms", concentric (project) widening and legitimacy building, which helped local projects survive the political change in 6 (Dubrovnik-Neretva, Osijek-Baranja, SisakMoslavina, Vara din, Virovitica-Podravina, and Brod-Posavina) of 7 counties.…”

“…[1] The pressure to reform and decentralize health care system was especially strong in the countries that inherited Semasko model of health care planning and management. [2,3] Croatian health care system, however, was organized differently.…”