Volume 13, Issue 2, February 2015, Pages 598–606
Vincent Itai Tanyanyiwa1
1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Zimbabwe Open University, P.O. Box MP 1119, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
Original language: English
Copyright © 2015 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
There is no doubt that decentralisation has acquired a prominent place in the development policy debates but unfortunately it cannot be a panacea for all development ills .To many, decentralisation of governments and planning is a self-evidently good thing. It will avoid the ills of over-centralization such as insensitivity to local conditions and will also bring fuller organization and participation at sub national level. Decentralisation is viewed as providing an outline which enables lower level units of governance to execute duties and get benefits from natural resources in line with the subsidiary principle. The subsidiary principle posits that duties which can be performed at the local level should be devolved to the local level. Decentralisation seems to combine appeals for planning and democracy. Can it live to these hopes in reality? The limits to government decentralisation include its need for manpower, finance and technical demands. Functional and territorial decentralisation has been blanketed into conflict between objectives of equity, growth, coordination, participation and national integration. The study used participant observation and literature review. One of the conclusions of the study is that there is a need to strengthen a more democratic and accountable local government in order to be able to implement the decentralized responsibilities. The apparent consequence of devolution is that the central government would be left with core responsibilities such as foreign affairs. Devolution would enable the people of Mashonaland East Province in Zimbabwe to report their needs to Marondera, the provincial capital rather than Harare. The assumption is that authorities at those administrative seats would respond much faster and with greater sympathy and empathy than those in Harare. The Government would be closer to the people and it would be the people themselves in both fact and effect. However, one major risk with decentralisation technique is that many private organisations are profit-oriented and may rip off the state.
Author Keywords: decentralisation, delegation, devolution, privatisation, rural development.
Vincent Itai Tanyanyiwa1
1 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Zimbabwe Open University, P.O. Box MP 1119, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
Original language: English
Copyright © 2015 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
There is no doubt that decentralisation has acquired a prominent place in the development policy debates but unfortunately it cannot be a panacea for all development ills .To many, decentralisation of governments and planning is a self-evidently good thing. It will avoid the ills of over-centralization such as insensitivity to local conditions and will also bring fuller organization and participation at sub national level. Decentralisation is viewed as providing an outline which enables lower level units of governance to execute duties and get benefits from natural resources in line with the subsidiary principle. The subsidiary principle posits that duties which can be performed at the local level should be devolved to the local level. Decentralisation seems to combine appeals for planning and democracy. Can it live to these hopes in reality? The limits to government decentralisation include its need for manpower, finance and technical demands. Functional and territorial decentralisation has been blanketed into conflict between objectives of equity, growth, coordination, participation and national integration. The study used participant observation and literature review. One of the conclusions of the study is that there is a need to strengthen a more democratic and accountable local government in order to be able to implement the decentralized responsibilities. The apparent consequence of devolution is that the central government would be left with core responsibilities such as foreign affairs. Devolution would enable the people of Mashonaland East Province in Zimbabwe to report their needs to Marondera, the provincial capital rather than Harare. The assumption is that authorities at those administrative seats would respond much faster and with greater sympathy and empathy than those in Harare. The Government would be closer to the people and it would be the people themselves in both fact and effect. However, one major risk with decentralisation technique is that many private organisations are profit-oriented and may rip off the state.
Author Keywords: decentralisation, delegation, devolution, privatisation, rural development.
How to Cite this Article
Vincent Itai Tanyanyiwa, “Decentralisation as a Rural Development Strategy in Zimbabwe: Good Policy but Bad Practise,” International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 598–606, February 2015.
