Download
1 / 22
220 likes | 448 Views
Issues and Challenges of Local Government Capacity Building: Bangladesh Experiences. Professor Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman, PhD Department of Public Administration University of Dhaka saminuzzaman@yahoo.com
E N D
Issues and Challenges of Local Government Capacity Building: Bangladesh Experiences Professor Salahuddin M. Aminuzzaman, PhDDepartment of Public Administration University of Dhakasaminuzzaman@yahoo.com Paper presented to International Conference on Challenges of Governance in South Asia, Kathmandu, Nepal December 15-16, 2008
Context Decentralization is one of the recent “development fads”. It is a high priority Donor Agenda for reforms. (Leading agents are WB, ADB, UNCDF and DFID). Ideological base is still not sure but it is argued that decentralization is generally motivated by political imperatives. But it has a sound basis in the economic rational of the allocation of resources and the responsiveness of policy making, strengthening grass root democracy. It is also seen as a more effective means to tackle poverty. Unfortunately empirical evidences are yet to be convincing. 2
Context Major Constraints Conceptual clarity is yet to be cleared (What to Decentralize? At what level and at what cost and benefit.) Political aspects of decentralization has been ignored Difficulty of matching autonomy, authority and accountability Insufficient capacity at the designated level of decentralization. Decentralization as function also depends on the nature of State.
Context Some observations from Bangladesh Decentralization to enhance Local Governance in Bangladesh has always been top-down and being mastermind by Dictatorial rulers!!! Demand side for Decentralization was hardly been there – except few donor supported NGOs and Civil Society raised the issue. Paradoxically in spite of high Constitutional commitment, Decentralization never got place in high priority reform agenda. Some form of in-built resistance from the political parties and Members of parliament 4
The fundamental argument of my paper is that Decentralization needs political, cultural, managerial and institutional preparedness. For that matter Capacity building at the local level is one of the prime considerations for decentralization. Capacity building also enhances the demand side of decentralization. Without such capacity building – decentralization could be more of rhetoric and may even further weaken local level governance and politics. 5
Recent developments in Bangladesh Decentralization is one of the recent policy focuses of Govt of Bangladesh. LGSP is one of such policies LGSP is mounting a campaign to strengthen the process of decentralization by strengthening the Union Parishad (UP). (A typical Union Parishad in Bangladesh consists of 19 villages and 13 Mouzas. A population of 21 thousand lives on 8.2 thousand acres of land with 3900 households)
Decentralization needs three F’s • Functions (with assigned authority) • Finance • Functionaries (with authority, competence and skill) • LGSP has primarily focused only on Finance • Bangladesh experiences of decentralization as a Local Capacity building scheme grossly missed two other elements.
One of the most important and serious challenge of recent decentralization move in Bangladesh is capacity building in shortest possible time with quality and minimum cost. In the light of the decentralization scheme (LGSP) of the GoB, The paper presents two alternative schemes for such capacity building approach
Institutional Profile of UP • UP as a local Government institutions has its origin in the period of British rule originated by the Chawkidari Panchayet Act of 1870. • UPs lack credibility and image. • Institutional and management capacity of the UPs is very poor. • A significant portion (85%) of UP officials (Chairman, Members and Secretary) have not received any training. • Female members of UP are still playing a “symbolic” and “ornamental” role. • UPs have a very weak financial and resource base.
Institutional profile of UP.... • Planning of UP projects is not participatory and fails to address the dire needs of the poor and disadvantaged. • There is no scope for effective community participation in planning process. • Some of the assigned functions are far beyond the legal, managerial and financial capacity of the UP.
Capacity needs of the UP • Critical areas of concern for capacity building of the age old institution are (Aminuzzaman, 2006): • Skills related to community mobilization and social mapping; • Revenue mobilization and collection (fiscal regulations, taxes, duties, user fees, revenue collection ); • Budget management (financial reports and audit, Procurement procedures) • Project design and management (participative planning; project implementation and supervision); • Inclusive strategic planning; • Institutional innovation for service delivery, • Monitoring and reporting system.
Supply Side of Capacity building • Present supply side of LG Capacity building is far too limited. Roughly up 10% of the demand side could be addressed by National Institute of Local Government (NILG), the sole training institution for the Local Government bodies. • Features of Alternative Capacity Building Service providers • 15 national NGOs and 2 international NGO have been involved in imparting training to the Local bodies through the funding support from different donor agencies. NGO expertise are : • Management of Social development activities and Salish (Alternative Dispute Resolution) are the other common elements of training of the NGOs. • Women’s right and human rights. • Technical aspects like project design and management, participative planning, social monitoring, resource management/ budgeting, office management, did not get adequate priority in the NGO training packages. • NGOs are heavily dependent on external resource speakers/ trainers.
Assessment of Capacity building ApproachIndependent studies recognized that “most of the training programs of the NILG are mere academic, routine, repetitive and devoid of changing reality” (UNDP, 2006, Aminuzzaman, 2007) • On the supply side, given the institutional and other practical limitations of NILG, two alternative options can be explored: • Approach A: Capacity building service through NGOs; • Approach B: Capacity building service through Upazila Resource Team (URT)
Approach A: Capacity building service through NGOs : A number of NGOs are expected to be providing the capacity building service to the primary level beneficiaries i.e. UP Chair, Members, Secretary and the members of Project Implementation Committee (PIC). Approach B - Capacity building service through Upazila Resource Team (URT) Under this approach, a Upazila Resource Team (URT) could be formed in each Upazila. The UNO will act as the Coordinator of the URT. Each Upazila has as many as 25 to 28 Professional cadre officials representing various line ministry and are all placed in one complex. In both Approaches, the members of the training team (i.e. URT members and the trainers of the NGO) will be given a short but intensive TOT by the NILG.
Preferences of potential training recipients As many as 250 UP officials (Chairman, Members and Secretaries) have been interviewed during this study. 60.58% of the UP officialspreferred the NGOs as the potential capacity building agent. Reasons for such preferences as identified by the UP officials are: a. NGO trainers are friendly and approachable; b. Trainers are realistic and down to earth; c. Trainers tend to respect the trainees; d. NGOs make the training session more enjoyable by using various interesting approaches; e. NGOs provide good travel and other allowances f. NGO programs usually have exposure visit
On the other hand, 31.56% of UP officials have opted for the Approach B (URT model), while 7.86% are unsureabout any of the approaches. Reasons for such preferences are: a. Upazila based officers are knowledgeable and experts b. This will boost their self confidence and prestige; c. This will create a bridge between the UP and Upazila based officers and trainers; d. Upazila based officer will have an opportunity to understand and learn problems related to UP; e. It will also minimize the ‘gap of understanding’ between the UP officials and Upazila administration.
Financial implication • However, from the cost estimation of both approaches, it is observed that Approach B, i.e. URT is financially much more cost effective. The variation of cost between the two approaches is significant (i.e.66%).
Assessment of the Approaches by NILG Experts The NILG professionals based on personal experiences and observations noted that the NGOs in general have some in-built limitations. Such as: A. NGO training programs are generally run by make shift trainers. B. Trainers tend to take “too idealist position” in analyzing the administrative and governance issues and tend to ignore the political reality. C. NGOs are neither accountable to the UP nor to the Upazila administration, thus it would be difficult to ensure monitoring and quality control.
Assessment of the Approaches by NILG Experts • NILG experts have shown their preference for Approach B, i.e., the URT model on the following counts: • This model could draw the professional experiences and competences of the GoB field level staff; • Higher chances of sustainability; it is cost effective, and easy to monitor and follow up; • The URT members are more directly and functionally linked to the ultimate beneficiaries and thereby can communicate with them more freely. • This approach will also enhance the capacity and understanding of the URT members to adapt and adopt their role, responsibility and institutional links with the UP.
Recommendations Considering the recently accumulated experiences, cost effectiveness, sustainability, appreciating the immediate demand for the training, and advantage of short lead time for launching the capacity building programme, Government may opt for Approach Bi.e. using the URT model. However, it is difficult to completely discard the potential and advantage of the Approach Aonly on cost ground. It is therefore recommended that on an experimental basis a selected number of NGOs be given the capacity building responsibilities on a pilot/ experimental basis to test the comparative advantage, efficiency and impact.
Conclusions Need for a clear Decentralization Policy (in the light and spirit of the Constitution) – which demands “Political Will” Political decentralization is also a necessary condition Continuous updating and improvement of curriculum and training modules is needed. (TNA and diagnostic assessments) Training modules need to be developed with the active participation of the local governments. (in some cases tailor made) Exposure visits to “best practices” and “peer learning” should be introduced/ encouraged. Use of indigenous knowledge can play an important role in managing local affairs/ governance issues.
