Study on Decentralization in the Caribbean (English)

DECENTRALIZATION, LOCAL

GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNITY

PARTICIPATION:

A CARIBBEAN PERSPECTIVE

PRESENTATION TO

CARIBBEAN SUB-REGIONAL FORUM ON

EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNANCE: INNOVATIVE

APPROACHES TO IMPROVING MUNICIPAL

MANAGEMENT

MONTEGO BAY, JAMAICA

MAY 16-17, 2000

BY: KEITH L MILLER

INTRODUCTION

THE CARIBBEAN SUB REGION AND CARICOM

The Caribbean Sub-Region is internationally regarded as comprising the string of islands stretching

from the Bahamas in the North-West to Trinidad & Tobago in the South-East, as well as the

mainland countries of Belize in Central America and Guyana, Surinam, and French Guyana on the

South American continent. The latter 3 countries and the Bahamas are not physically located in, or

bordering on, the Caribbean Sea from which the Sub-Region derives its name, but are traditionally

treated as part of the Caribbean.

Caribbean countries are all former colonies of European powers, i.e. England, Spain, France, and

Holland. The USA joined this club towards the end of the 19th

century by assuming control of

Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. Most Caribbean states have now gained their independence, but

several remain colonies, or have been given some form of special status as part of their metropolitan

country. Caribbean states vary in size and population, the largest being Cuba with an area of 44,000

square miles and 10 million people. The vast majority however, are small islands which fall within

the international definition of small or micro states. The mainland states, while having relatively

large land areas, are very sparsely populated (e.g. Guyana with a land mass of 215,000 sq km and a

population of 850,000), and therefore also fall within most definitions of smallness.

It is the combination of small size, colonial heritage, relative state of under-development and their

vulnerability to external forces such as globalization, which characterize the countries of the Sub-

region, and provide the context for an examination of the applicability and usefulness of concepts of

decentralization, local government and citizen/community participation as being relevant to the

quest for development and good governance in the Sub-region. For the purposes of this Paper

however, the focus of analysis will be on CARICOM member states.

CARICOM (the acronym for Caribbean Common Market) is an economic integration treaty

of 27

embracing some 14 Caribbean countries. It is slated to become a Single Market and Economy by

December 2000, and can be seen as a Caribbean response to the global trend towards creation of

larger trading blocks, in order to provide larger markets for local business-people. The majority of

members, and original signatories to the treaty, are the former British colonies of Antigua/Barbuda,

Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St Kitts/Nevis, St

Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago. These have subsequently been joined by Haiti and Surinam. The

Dominican Republic has been accorded observer status, and is now seeking full membership.

of 27

A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON DECENTRALIZATION

As the third millennium dawns, decentralization, enhancement of local government and

participation of civil society in governance have become major agenda items in discussions on

political/public administrative reform, and now command the attention of major international

agencies, academicians and policy-makers throughout the world. Heightened interest in these

inter-related concepts is driven by a growing imperative for countries around the globe to find

ways to improve the quality of governance, deliver services in a more cost effective and

responsive manner, and to reverse the growing alienation of citizens from the electoral process.

Equally compelling is the fact than several global trends and factors pose problems and

challenges which threaten to overwhelm the capacity of national governments to find appropriate

responses. These point to the need for a paradigm shift in the concept and practice of governance

and public administration, towards new approaches which can meet those challenges. Factors

which drive the search for this new paradigm, and which while being applicable to most

countries are particularly acute in respect to developing countries, include the following:

1. Rapid population growth and urbanization will cause the urban populations in developing

countries to more than double by 2050, as most of the expected increase in world

population, from 6 to 12 billion, will occur in urban centres in these countries. As a case

in point the urban population of Jamaica stood at 1,154,000 in 1991, and is projected to

rise to 2,642,000 by 2020, an increase of 120%. These nations therefore face the uphill

task of providing, within 50 years, housing, infrastructure and social services/ amenities

equivalent to what it has taken them centuries to provide for their existing urban

populations.

2. Most developing nations have huge existing deficits in providing basic social services for

their citizens. They therefore not only need to meet the demands of rapidly expanding

urban populations, but also to make up on those deficits. High levels of poverty;

inadequate/poorly maintained infrastructure, alarming levels of environmental

degradation, lack of a social safety net for vulnerable groups; lack of basic social

amenities, and poor planning, are symptomatic of conditions in most of these urban

centres.

3. Growing concerns about environmental sustainability bring new challenges to public

management and impose serious restraints on the development agenda of developing

countries, as efforts to satisfy urgent socio-economic needs must now be balanced by

concerns about environmental degradation. Potential and actual impact of phenomena

of 27

such as global climate change and natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, hurricanes, etc),

constitute special security concerns for small island states, such as in the Caribbean.

4. Globalization and the accompanying communications/information revolution have

sparked an explosion in expectations of the average citizen as to the quality of life to

which they consider themselves entitled, and have made them impatient in being able to

achieve it.

5. Increasing life expectancy in developing countries mean that the phenomenon of rapidly

increasing aged populations is occurring at an earlier stage of economic transformation

than was the case in developed countries, and simultaneously with an explosion in their

youth population. Thus developing countries are having to cope with problems associated

with phenomena related to both stages of development.

6. An increasingly assertive citizenry, bolstered by ready access to information of public

affairs and of their rights and powers, is no longer prepared to passively consent to

decisions handed down to them, or to accept choices made on their behalf by leaders who

they see as being remote to their situation/concerns.

7. Extremely limited resources, on which there are competing claims for social services,

national security, debt servicing, and developmental needs, present difficult political

choices with attendant risks of social upheaval, particularly in the context of widespread

alienation from the political process and mainstream society. In such situations, a critical

requirement for effective political management, social cohesion and building of social

capital, and for reconciling expectations/desires to available resources, is the creation of

mechanisms for broad participation in decision-making about national and local

priorities, and about the use of resources to meet those priorities.

The nature and magnitude of challenges arising from these trends and factors point to the need

for a model of governance and public management which emphasizes local self-management and

greater participation of local stake-holders, to facilitate innovative and problem-solving

approaches in these processes, and to ensure that policy directions and initiatives adopted have

the support of key stakeholders, and benefit from the collective wisdom of the community. Such

a model would also facilitate mobilization of local resources (both financial and human) and

energies, which existing approaches are unable to do. Decentralization, particularly through

stronger and more effective systems of Local Government, is an essential element of such a

model.

of 27

CARIBBEAN PERSPECTIVES ON DECENTRALIZATION

AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Caribbean States are classified as developing countries. They face an urgent need to achieve

development and are subject to the trends identified above, and therefore must be interested in

new models of governance/public management which promise to be better able to respond to the

new challenges and to facilitate development. However, several peculiar physical, historical,

socio-political and institutional factors have consequences for decentralization and the viability

of local government in Caribbean states, given their size and post-colonial character. These

concepts must therefore be assessed in the context of those peculiar factors, to determine their

applicability and suitability to states with such characteristics. Factors which are particularly

relevant include:

The Factor of Size: The major factor raised in respect to the relevance of

decentralization and/or the viability of local government to Caribbean states is that of

size. It is raised particularly in respect to smaller islands, but have been advanced in the

case of the larger islands, which by world standards also qualify as small states. Among

arguments advanced in support of the view that they are not relevant are:

That the limited resource base of these economies cannot maintain two levels of

government.

That the range and volume of public management tasks and functions in these

small states are not sufficient to justify two distinct levels of Government.

That most functions assigned to Local Government can be more efficiently

performed centrally, because of economies of scale and more effective use of

scarce trained/competent manpower.

That developments in communications/transportation have obviated the original

justification for local government i.e. the remoteness/inaccessibility of outlying

areas from the Capital.

Counter arguments to the above include the following:

It is precisely where resources are limited that the need for local participation is

greatest, as this facilitates innovativeness & mobilization of local resources and

contributions which would be unavailable to centrally directed initiatives, and

of 27

which add value to the development process.

Small size is relative. Countries with limited land areas/populations operate

effective and viable local governments. Others have found that advantages gained

through local self-management make it worthwhile to maintain municipalities

with populations of a few thousand.

The much heralded economies of scale are often more theoretical than real, as the

extended chain of command and remoteness from the action scene which

characterizes centralized operations often result in poor decision-making,

unresponsiveness, inability to effectively supervise or take timely action, and an

absence of a sense of ownership.

The view that modern technology can satisfy the communication needs of good

governance is predicated on a top-down, authoritarian approach to the exercise of

political power. It assumes a one-way flow of information and opinions, and

ignores the imperative of dialogue between the governors and the governed as an

essential element of good governance in modern-day society.

The issue as to what constitute a minimum size at which a local authority is viable is also

relative. While many contend that some local authorities in Jamaica with populations of 70,000

are too small to be viable, Malta with 67 municipalities ranging in population from 18,000 -

30,000, considers all of them to be viable. Sweden has rationalized its local government system

over the past 50 years by reducing the number of municipalities from 2,400 to 289, but still retain

municipalities with populations of 3,000, holding that they are viable.

Inherited Model of Governance and Public Administration. English speaking

Caribbean nations have inherited the Whitehall/Westminster Model of governance/public

administration. There is much debate as to the continued usefulness of the model to the

development needs and realities of these countries. Of immediate interest to this

discussion however, is the implications and consequences of the features of this model for

the process of, or prospects for, decentralization.

The Model is characterized by an over-centralization of state functions and an

authoritarian approach to public management. Efforts at decentralization are

therefore usually seen as threats to the control and status of the centre, and are

treated with suspicion or even hostility. To the extent that central bureaucracies

have had to accommodate Local Government systems, they have sought to make

that institution subordinate or inferior.

The inherited model and colonial experience have produced a cadre of public

administrators who are primarily status oriented, imitative and reactive, rather

than achievement oriented, innovative problem-solving and pro-active. This is

of 27

characteristic of both central and local administrators, and constitute major

concerns for a decentralization process aimed at creating local capacity to take on

the challenges of locally led development.

Another characteristic of this model is that it marginalizes and dis-empowers a

vast majority of the population, making them mere spectators in the development

process. Deprived by the formal structures of opportunities to contribute

positively to the society, their creativity, energies and talents are often channeled

into a wide array of anti-social behaviors and attitudes.

Institutional Capacity. Weak capacity to respond to the tasks/challenges of national

development, in the context of post-colonial state of underdevelopment and recent

phenomena such as globalization, is a feature of the inherited model. Over-centralization

is a major inhibitor to capacity development. Decentralization provides a facilitating

framework for institutional development/capacity building, but itself faces challenges

because of weak capacity at all levels, i.e. at national and local government levels, and

among the key partners in the process of participatory governance, such as civil society in

the form of non-governmental and community based organizations. Institutional capacity

building issues include:

Enhancement of technical competence, professionalism, and performance

orientation among the bureaucracy at both central and local government levels,

and engendering a problem-solving, entrepreneurial, and customer orientation

among this class.

Modernization of the public management apparatus, including greater application

of technology and state on knowledge in the field.

Training and other HRD interventions, to enhance skills and competencies

particularly in critical areas such as financial and project management, social

mobilization and coalition building.

Establishment of institutional forms and structures to facilitate the creation of

genuine and effective partnerships between government and civil society,

Strengthening of organizational, leadership and problem solving capacity among

community based and non-governmental organizations, and other civil society

entities..

Traditional Role and Functioning of Local Government. The Model of Government

instituted by colonial powers in their Caribbean territories often included a local

government component. However, the type of local government established was

fashioned on the then existing metropolitan model, and was definitely not intended to be

of 27

instruments of popular local expression or to promote empowerment of the local

citizenry. Typical features of local government systems which were established in the

sub-region, and which have survived and developed over time, are illustrated by the

following:

Local Government in the early colonial to post-slavery eras was totally controlled

by and served the interests of plantation owners and the landed classes. Hostility

by Local Authorities to attempts by ex -slaves to establish free villages/peasant

communities testify to this class interest.

Local Governments are subject to strong central control, and usually require

approval from the Centre for most actions. This oftentimes lead to decisions taken

by elected Councils or high level local officials being over-ruled or thwarted by

low level functionaries in central ministries.

Local Authorities are subject to arbitrary Central Government action, such as

dissolution of the elected Council or removal of subjects for which they are

responsible, often without process, notice or any opportunity for local

participation in or ability to influence the decision.

Central control over Local Authorities is further tightened by excessive financial

dependence of Local Authorities on the Central Government.

Functions for which local government is responsible tend to be limited, and vary

with countries. In larger states functions extend to sanitation, road/drains, public

health, markets/abattoirs, and zoning control, while in smaller states it is confined

to community related affairs and projects

Local Government is treated as an instrument for effecting Central Government

programmes at the local level, or distributing scarce benefits (pork barrel), rather

than as an instrument for local self-management and self-expression. Essentially

therefore, the traditional relationship between Central and Local Government has

been that of Principal/Agent.

Local Government is traditionally perceived as a provider of specified local

services, rather than as having responsibility for overall management of local

affairs within its jurisdiction.

Despite constraints and public dissatisfaction with its ability to respond to local

needs, Local Government has acquired significant public support, as illustrated by

the severe backlash against the Government in Jamaica, when that it attempted to

dismantle Local Government in the 1980s.

Financing of Local Government/decentralized activities. Methods for financing local

governments determine the effectiveness of a decentralized system. Critical factors are

of 27

whether Local Authorities are allocated independent sources of revenue, and enjoy

relative autonomy in managing/controlling those sources. Another key indicator is the

proportion of total public expenditure which is effected through these bodies. Caribbean

experience to-date is that Central Governments have been reluctant to concede any

significant degree of financial autonomy or clout to local government. The following is a

brief overview of features/issues relating to financing of local government in the region.

Local Governments are funded primarily by Central Government Grants. This

approach to local government financing severely restricts the role/responsibility of

local authorities in determining the level of revenues available to them, and does

not encourage local initiatives in this regard. It also does not enable local

authorities to predict the funding likely to be available to them, and usually allows

little scope for local discretion in the use of funds at their disposal.

Where Local Government is given its own specified revenue sources, these are

usually managed by central agencies, and Local Authorities have limited roles,

other than to receive the revenues.

Local Authorities have very limited or no scope for taking any initiative to secure

financing for purposes which they deem necessary or desirable for local

development or to satisfy local needs.

The percentage of national public expenditure effected through local governments

in Caribbean states is generally less than 1%. Comparison show that similar

figures for major world regions are:

of 27

quality staff, and in providing relevant training for such staff, are major impediments to

Local Government effectiveness in providing innovative responses to local needs and

development challenges. Decentralization will create an even greater need for high

quality staffing. Factors which contribute to this situation include:

Local Governments are often staffed from the Central Government. Where staff is

employed to a Local Government service, they are subject to central control

regarding appointment and other employment issues. Local Authorities thus have

no control over their staff and staffing issues.

Local Government is usually regarded as a backwater, and conditions of

employment are less attractive than in the central service, making it an

unattractive career choice for high achievers

.Local government bureaucrats show similar characteristics to their central

government counter-parts, in terms of being predominantly status oriented,

reactive and imitative.

Very limited resources, and a dearth of relevant training to properly prepare them

for the task environment in which they function, are major impediments to

development of a cadre of local government practitioners capable of taking on the

challenges which face them. However, some initiatives in developing such

training have been taken, including the following as examples:

UWI has introduced Certificate in Local Government Studies at St

Augustine, and with UTech is collaborating with the Government of

Jamaica in developing a range of training programmes for local

government personnel, including Councillors.

A number of international agencies, including the Organization of

American States and Commonwealth Local Government Forum, have

sponsored several regional seminars/ workshops for Mayors, Councillors

and senior civil service/local government officials, to provide training in

local governance issues, and facilitate an exchange of views.

Effects of Globalization: Globalization has massively impacted on Caribbean states in

many respects. Firstly, it poses a severe threat to many of the critical industries and

trading relationships on which most countries in the region has traditionally depended for

their economic survival. It has also facilitated deep cultural penetration of the region,

which has the effect of changing traditional values, life styles and patterns of

consumption, thus serving to undermine the social, cultural and economic traditions in

the Caribbean. Globalization has also served to heighten the expectations of the

population, and to promote greater assertiveness of citizens in demanding that their voice

be heard, and in challenging authority.

of 27

Regional integration is seen as a critical survival response by Caribbean states to

globalization. At first sight this may seem to be in opposition to a policy of

decentralization. However, to cope with the challenges and take advantage of

opportunities presented by globalization, Caribbean states will need to build social

capital, increase social cohesiveness and enhance the quality of governance and public

management. Decentralization and participation are essential elements in achieving those

outcomes, and therefore must be seen as complementary rather than contradictory to the

process of integration.

DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SOME CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

DECENTRALIZATION

Decentralization is the transfer of state/public functions from central to sub-national levels of

government, or from central agencies/offices to regional bodies or local offices, or non-

governmental organizations. It is also defined as the redefinition of structures, procedures and

practices of governance to be closer to the citizenry, and can take the form of deconcentration,

delegation or devolution. Deconcentration is the delegation of administration functions to

regional/local offices, without transfer of political power. Delegation entails the transfer of

responsibility for specified functions and associated authority to organizations outside of or

indirectly controlled by government. Devolution involves the transfer of functions and

responsibility to sub-national Authorities or levels of government which are largely independent

of central government control, and involves the delegation of political authority.

Divestment/privatization is sometimes treated as a separate form of decentralization, while

deconcentration and delegation are grouped as a single form called Administrative

decentralization. The purpose of this Paper is not however to discuss the relative merits of

different definitions or views of decentralization. It suffices to say that in this Paper, the term will

generally be used to mean devolution.

Devolution is the form of decentralization most conducive to development of strong autonomous

systems of local government. It facilitates the empowerment of communities and the

participation of civil society in the process of governance, and attains its highest point when the

scope of local government extends beyond being a mere service provider, to embrace overall

responsibility for local self management and development. In this mode it assumes the lead role

in forging strong horizontal integration at the local level, and building alliances between all local

of 27

stakeholder groups; and it also coordinates the activities and programmes of all entities

operating within its jurisdiction, including central agencies, civil society, communities, CBOs

and NGOs.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT V.S. LOCAL GOVERNANCE

It is important to distinguish between the terms local government and local governance. The

former refers to the institution/structure which conduct governmental functions at the local level,

while the latter is the process through which public choice is determined, policies formulated, or

decisions are made and executed at the local level, and the roles and relationships between the

various stakeholders or interest groups in this process. This distinction is important in discussing

the relevance of decentralization in the region, because of the need to realize that many of the

principles, concepts and objectives of participatory local governance are relevant and can be

realized even in the absence of a formal local government system..

CENTRALIZATION V.S. DECENTRALIZATION

Centralization and Decentralization are frequently juxtaposed as tendencies which are inimical to

each other, i.e. that adoption of a policy of decentralization must inevitably result in diminution

of the centre in terms of size, scope and importance. While it is axiomatic that devolution entails

a significant transfer of power to the sub-national level, this does not necessarily mean a

reduction in the scope or importance of the centre. What it entails is a redefinition of roles and

relationships. In fact, if decentralization is not lead to chaos and other dys-functional

developments, it is essential that certain central functions be significantly enhanced. These

include the development of a comprehensive national policy framework which, while allowing

adequate scope for local governments to adopt strategies which reflect local conditions and

preferences, will ensure broad coherence and direction in respect to national development. Other

central functions which also need to be strengthened include coordination, monitoring and

evaluation, setting national standards and specifications, and research.

THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY

This principle posits that responsibility/authority for any task/function should be assigned ton the

lowest level at which it can be effectively performed, or to the level nearest to the persons

directly impacted by it. It provides a very useful guideline for determining the distribution of

responsibilities for state/public functions between the national, sub-national and community

of 27

levels of administration, in a decentralized system of governance.

REVIEW OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CARICOM STATES

There are wide variations among countries in the Caribbean sub-region regarding the history and

present status of Local Government. Differences can be attributed to several factors, including

size and population, the dominant colonial power, and past and contemporary political

developments which have favored movements either towards or away from decentralized

approaches to governance. The following is an attempt to present a broad categorization into

which Caribbean states can be grouped, based on their historical and contemporary experience

with local government. This is followed by brief summaries/assessments of the situation in each

CARICOM state (A tabular presentation of this information can be found in Appendix One):

Countries in which a system of local government has never existed, and in which there is

little interest in or disposition toward adopting a formal local government system in the

foreseeable future.

Countries which in the past have had a system of local government, but has since

abolished the institution, and which show little interest in or disposition toward reviving

the system.

Countries in which there are official local government systems on the Books (i.e. by

statute or in the Constitution), but the system has either been suspended or is non-

functional. In some of these states there are credible efforts towards restoring the system,

while in others such efforts are ambivalent.

Countries in which no local government system previously existed, but which in recent

years have established such systems, or are in the process of doing so.

Countries which have had a long tradition of local government, some of these having

been in existence for over 300 years, and which continue to support strong local

government systems..

There are several cases of twin-island states (i.e. unions between two main islands of

unequal size). Antigua/Barbuda, St Kitts/Nevis and Trinidad & Tobago are such cases.

Constitutions of these states usually confer a degree of local autonomy to the smaller

island, and this is seen as constituting a form of local self-government, in addition to any

other system which might exist for the entire nation.

1. ANTIGUA & BARBUDA

Local Government in Antigua/Barbuda consists of District Councils. The Districts coincide with

the 16 political constituencies. The system is by administrative decree rather than by legislation,

of 27

and Councils are nominated rather than elected. District functions of are confined to community

activities and projects, and promoting volunteerism. Current efforts to enhance Local

Government consist of giving the District Councils a larger role in disaster management, through

rekindling the spirit of cooperation. The Antigua/Barbuda Constitution confers substantial local

autonomy on Barbuda, and this is regarded as a form of local government.

2. THE BAHAMAS

The Bahamas did not have any form of Local Government until 1996, when such a system was

established by Act of Parliament. The system introduced then consisted of 23 District Councils

covering the 29 inhabited islands (out of a total of 700 islands, cays and reefs which comprise the

Bahamas). The number of Districts has subsequently been increased to 31 by an amendment to

the Local Government Act in 1999. Local Authorities are funded by grants from Central

Government, and are responsible for upkeep of roads, harbours, parks, and public buildings,

public transportation and development of youth and culture. Reform and further strengthening of

local government is being pursued by way of review of the Local Government Act.

3. BARBADOS

Barbados does not have a local government system, as this level of government was abolished

some years ago. Proposals for the re-introduction of this institution has been made in several

constitutional review exercises, but none of these have been adopted, and there is no active effort

to restore it. Nonetheless, Barbados has attempted to provide mechanisms to facilitate local

participation in addressing local issues through the establishment of Urban and Rural

Development Commissions

4. BELIZE

There is a vibrant local government system in Belize, and significant initiatives have been

undertaken in recent years to enhance this system. This process is continuing. Initiatives include

legislative reform to give greater autonomy to Local Authorities; capacity building programmes

to strengthen policy-making and managerial competence/systems; and expanding the role of

municipalities in the provision of services and public amenities.

Local Government takes the form of 6 District Councils and 9 municipalities (2 cities and 7

towns), but these do not cover the entire land space of Belize. Councils of the Local Authorities

are democratically elected..

5. DOMINICA

of 27

Dominica has a strong tradition in respect to Local Government, and the commitment to this

institution is continuing. The present system is based on Town, Village and District Councils,

which are comprised of a mix of elected and nominated members. It is established by Act of

Parliament, and its main functions relate to the management of community affairs, project

implementation and community self-help. Local Government Reform is currently under

consideration, and this might facilitate greater participation of civil society in governance.

6. GRENADA

Grenada has a quite advanced system of Local Government entrenched in its Constitution.

However this has been suspended since 1983, and therefore there is no functional local

government at this time. While statements have been made in respect to restoration of some form

of local government, there has been no clear indication as to when the institution will be restored.

At present efforts in this direction is focused on granting some form of local government to

Carriacou and Petit Martinique, which are two small islands that form part of Grenada.

7. GUYANA

Guyana has a very elaborate system of local government, which is entrenched in the Constitution.

The various levels include County, Regional, City & Town, District and Amerindian Councils,

which are all democratically elected. There is also provision for Village Councils, neighborhoods

and peoples cooperative units. Not all of these are fully established however. Local Authorities

are financed primarily from their own sources of revenue, as Central Government subventions

have dried up because of the financial situation. The present arrangements do not yield adequate

revenues to meet mandated responsibilities. While some Councils enjoy a degree of autonomy,

approval of the Minister is still required for many actions, e.g. appointment/control of staff, etc.

8. HAITI

Haiti had no form of local government prior to 1987, when the new Constitution established a

very elaborate and sophisticated system consisting of 4 hierarchical levels of Local Authorities -

i.e. 9 Departments, 41 Arrondissements, 133 Communes and 564 Communal Sections.

Theoretically, these enjoy substantial financial and administrative autonomy from Central

Government. So far, this system has not been operationalized, and in fact while Mayors have

been elected they have no administrative support and therefore are unable to function. In the

meantime, local services are being administered by officials appointed by the President and

controlled by the Ministry of the Interior and Local Government. Many observers are of the view

that Haiti does not have the culture, history or resources (financial and human) to operate such an

of 27

elaborate and sophisticated system.

Prior to 1987, control of the countryside was effected, under the Code Rural of 1862", by

chiefs of section who were army auxiliaries instructed and trained to block and repress any

claims/rights of the rural population. This approach to dealing with the rights, interests and needs

of local people would certainly have become entrenched in the culture of public management

after more than a century of practice, and will certainly prove to be a major impediment to

achieving the admirable goals of the new local government system.

9. JAMAICA

Jamaica has had almost 350 years tradition in having a local government system in place , and

this has served to create a strong culture of local administration. There have been fundamental

changes to the system since it was first introduced shortly after the British capture of the island in

1655. The present structure of local government consist of 13 Local Authorities - 12 Parish

Councils and 1 Municipal Authority (Kingston). Further details on the Jamaican local

government system is provided in the Case Study on Local Government Reform.

10. ST. KITTS/NEVIS

St Kitts/Nevis does not have a formal local government system for the country as a whole.

However, it is one of those twin island states in which the Constitution confers substantial local

autonomy for the smaller partner in the union, which in this case is Nevis.

11. ST LUCIA

Local Government was introduced in St Lucia in 1947 under 2 Acts of Parliament. The system

consist of 1 City Council, 3 Town Councils and 6 Village Councils, which are normally made up

of elected members. However, elections have been suspended since 1979 and therefore the

membership of Councils are presently nominated. Local Authorities are funded entirely by grants

from Central Government, and at present expenditure by these Authorities constitute

approximately 0.5% of gross annual public expenditure. St Lucia is currently engaged in a

comprehensive review of local government, with the intention of carrying out substantial

reforms.

12. ST VINCENT & THE GRENADINES

St Vincent and the Grenadines have no existing local government system. However, that country

of 27

has attempted to introduce some element of citizen participation in governance through the

establishment of a Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation system, which is intended to provide

local communities with the opportunity to be involved in all stages of the project cycle.

13. SURINAME

Local Government was introduced into Suriname in June, 1989 by means on the new

Constitution and by Act of Parliament. The system is based on District Councils, whose

membership are partially elected and partially nominated. The Local Authorities have

responsibility for a range of functions, including waste disposal, maintenance of secondary and

tertiary roads, public markets, public guest houses, and procurement of licences.

They are funded primarily by Central government grants, and expenditure by these Authorities

constitute about 1% of gross annual public expenditure. A number of measures have been put in

place to encourage/facilitate the participation of civil society in governance, including a

provision that District Ordinances drafted by the District Councils must be open to public

discussion, and objections can be lodged to the National Assembly by citizens.

14. TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

Trinidad and Tobago has one of the oldest traditions of local government in the Caribbean. The

institution was first introduced to the island in 1596 by the Spanish. However the modern system

is dated back to 1768. The present system is established by Act of Parliament, and consist of

Municipal and Regional Corporations, and the Tobago House of Assembly which has special

status. These authorities are controlled by democratically elected members, and are funded by

Central government grants and locally derived rates, user charges and licence fees, with central

government grants making up as high as 80% of the funding of municipalities. Trinidad and

Tobago has initiated several measures to expand the scope of local government, including

making them responsible for the administration of unemployment benefits.

A CARIBBEAN CASE STUDY:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN JAMAICA

BACKGROUND AND BRIEF HISTORY

This case illustrates a Caribbean approach to decentralization, the role of local government in

managing local affairs, participation of civil society in local governance, financing of local

government and institutional capacity building. Local Government in Jamaica dates back to just

of 27

after its British capture in 1655. Development of the institution over the years, and its features,

reflect the patterns and characteristics symptomatic of Caribbean local governments. Several

Studies/Reports on Local Government Reform have been commissioned over the past 60 years,

the first being the Hill Report of 1943. These have been largely ignored. The current Programme

constitute the first attempt at meaningful reform of Local Government. In 1985 however, the then

Government - citing incompetence and mismanagement, virtually dismantled the local

government system. The Municipal Authority for Kingston was dissolved, and most local

government functions were transferred to central agencies. Strong public backlash against this

move contributed to the loss of power by the government in 1989. The new government came to

power on a platform which included the restoration/reform of local government

Objectives of the Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP)

The focal objective of Local Government Reform, as outlined in Ministry Paper 8 in 1993, is to

bring about a fundamental transformation in the process of local governance, by facilitating

greater self-management of local affairs, and by creating a decentralized system of Local

Government which would facilitate the active and direct participation of civil society in the

process of local governance. Four major objectives were enunciated:

To deepen and broaden the democratic process

To facilitate the active participation of citizens in the management of local affairs.

To ensure the provision of local services which are of a high quality, cost effective and

are responsive to the needs of citizens.

To achieve a better division of labour between Central and Local Government, in which

the Centre will focus on national policy making, planning, setting standards and macro

issues, while Local Government will be responsible for operations/implementation at the

local level and for micro issues.

Six main areas of reform were identified as being essential for realizing the objectives set out

above

1. Financial Reforms: Targeted outcome here is to reverse the excessive financial

dependence of Local Authorities on Central Government, and to eventually take local

government off the national budget. To achieve this goal independent sources of revenue

have been allocated to Local Authorities, and they are being assisted to boost own-source

revenues and generally improve their revenue/financial management capabilities. As a

result of these initiatives, Local Government now derives 61% of its revenues from

sources allocated to it, whereas prior to reforms 95% of their funding came from Central

of 27

Government.

2. Legal Reform. This involves modernizing the legal framework of Local Government by

revising or re-writing the more than 100 Acts of Parliament which make up the legal

framework of local government. The main thrust of these reforms is to give Local

Authorities greater autonomy; remove the powers of Central Government to arbitrarily

dissolve/dismantle local governments; make the laws more relevant to modern realities;

and to have Local Government entrenched in the Constitution when this is revised..

3. Institutional Upgrading/Capacity Building: this involves modernizing and upgrading

the institutional capacity of Councils by enhancing their organizational structures; giving

them additional high level staff; improving management systems, instituting a

comprehensive HRD programme, including training for Councilors; and by upgrading

their physical facilities and computerizing their operations.

4. Revision of the role of Local Authorities and relationships between all the major actors,

interest groups and stakeholders in the local government system. This includes shifting

the focus of Local Authorities away from being merely providers of certain specified

local services, to having broad responsibility for managing the affairs of the Parish, and

charting its course of development.

5. Upgrading the quality of services delivery and infrastructure management. The

focus here is to improve the quality, cost-effectiveness and responsiveness of services

provided by Local Authorities, and the management and maintenance of local

infrastructure. To achieve this, and to rehabilitate local infrastructure which had become

severely deteriorated, Government has initiated a US$50 million Parish Infrastructure

Development Project, which will be available to carry out such works in all Parishes.

6. Participation of Civil Society in Governance: Mechanisms/strategies to facilitate the

participation of civil society in governance, and forge strong partner relationships

between Local Authorities and communities/civil society has been a key part of reform.

Initiatives to achieve these goals include:

Establishing a National Advisory Council on Local Government Reform (NAC),

with represent-atives from major political parties, Trade Unions, the Church, and

major interest groups as well as noted scholars and practitioners. This helped to

win broad-based support for the Programme.

Parish Advisory Committees similar in composition and purpose to the NAC,

were set up in each Parish. These have been replaced by Parish Development

of 27

Committees (PDCs) comprising all public agencies operating at Parish level,

community/civil society leaders, NGOs and the private sector in the Parish. It

works with Local Authorities in formulating Development Plans and coordinating

private/public sector initiatives in economic growth for the Parish. PDCs helps to

monitor service delivery and ensure accountability of Authorities to citizens.

Some Councils have begun the practice of presenting their annual budgets to the

public in their respective Parishes, to provide opportunities for citizens to critique

it and make suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Caribbean face critical challenges in overcoming its legacy of under-development and

vestiges of colonial heritage. Additionally, several global trends portend new challenges for

governance in the developing world, and in particular, for small, post-colonial island states.

Fundamental overhaul of inherited models of governance /public management in the region is

essential for successfully meeting these challenges. Decentralization, citizen participation in local

governance, and an enhanced role for local government in local self-management/local

development, constitute key elements of a new paradigm of governance which must be embraced

by the region, if the goals of social transformation and economic development are to be realized.

Presently however, rhetoric on this subject far exceed the limited and tentative measures which

have been initiated to bring these principles into the day-to-day practice of government.

Interventions to galvanize this process is an urgent priority.

Absence of an appropriate policy framework for advancing the new paradigm is a major

contributor to the slow progress in moving the model from conceptual acceptance to wider

application. Formulation of a Regional Policy and Strategic Plan of Action on decentralization,

local governance and citizen/community participation should therefore make a major

contribution towards inculcating these principles and concepts into the processes of governance

in the sub-region. Such a policy framework would help to clarify several issues and provide a

clear frame of reference as to what ought to constitute a properly functioning local government

system, in the context of Caribbean needs and realities. Most importantly, it would encourage

and assist individual countries to formulate their own national policies on the subject, within the

broad parameters of the regional policy, but reflecting the realities and inclinations of their own

situation.

Key issues and features which a Regional Policy and Strategic Plan of Action should give special

focus to, and/ or address and promote, include the following:

of 27

Strong encouragement for member states to embrace local government systems which are

democratic, participatory, have appropriate legal (preferably constitutional) standing,

enjoy autonomy in respect to local affairs, and enjoy independent revenues/resources,

commensurate with their mandated functions

Recognition that for a variety of reasons, classical models of local government or

orthodox approaches to decentralization might not be feasible/appropriate for several

member states. Policy options, which while promoting the principles of decentralization

and participation of civil society in governance, do not necessarily require the existence

of formal local government systems, must therefore be explored.

Devising financing models which offer real financial autonomy to local government is

critical to enabling local authorities to respond to local needs/priorities, and apply

innovative solutions to local problems. Improving the financial management capability of

these authorities, and establishing mechanisms to ensure their public accountability to the

local community, must be essential components of such models.

Promoting a policy of increasing local governments share of gross public revenue! The

share of the national pie which is controlled at the local level is a measure of the ability of

local decision-makers to respond to local needs and priorities, and also to effectively plan

for, and take action to initiate, local development. Equally, the economic strength of sub-

national units of government is an indication of their capacity to respond to local

investment opportunities and initiatives, and take the lead in creating a vibrant local

economy. Such a policy is therefore vital if local authorities, along with their local private

sector and civil society partners, are to take on the role of initiating locally led

development/wealth creation, and forging a third economy - i.e. local job

creation/expansion of economic opportunities outside of normal private sector and

traditional public sector activities. Measures which could help to increase the share of

total public revenue available to local government include the following:

Encouraging local authorities to generate surpluses from their recurrent revenue

sources, to be used to finance local capital projects.

Curtail the practice of using special purpose central agencies to undertake capital

works in local jurisdictions, rather than channeling funds to local authorities for

executing such works.

Transfer more functions which are now performed nationally, e.g.

repair/maintenance of schools, public building situated within the various local

jurisdictions, to the respective local authorities.

Adopt revenue-sharing policies, particularly for revenue earned from activities

which have high impact on local communities, or require high levels of local

of 27

inputs/support (e.g. tourism, mining)

Redefining the role/scope of local government, from being mere providers of local

services to assuming responsibility for the holistic management of local affairs and local

development planning and economic growth. In this new dispensation, local government

becomes the vehicle through which the local people are empowered to take charge of

their own affairs, and plan their future. This requires a framework for citizens/civil

society to become involved in the decision-making process, and in innovative approaches

to solving local problems, based on local knowledge and choice as regards needs and

priorities.

Place strong emphasis on capacity building/human resource development as essential pre-

requisites for adoption of a decentralized, participatory model of local governance.

Enhanced capacity is required for all key sectors and players in this process, including

central and local government political leaders and bureaucracies, community/civil society

organizations and leaders, the private sector and NGOs. HRD is a key element of capacity

building, as are appropriate technology and modern management practices.

Regional universities/tertiary institutions should be enlisted to develop/expand the range

and relevance of training available to prepare policy makers and practitioners in the

region to take up the challenge of pursuing national development through decentralized

and participatory models of governance. This should include encouragement of research

and scholarship in these areas, to expand knowledge and understanding of

decentralization, local government and participation processes in a Caribbean context..

Encourage regional Governments to undertake a comprehensive review of the distribution

of functions between the various levels of government, with a view to ensuring that

responsibility for these functions are allocated to the level which is most conducive to

efficiency and responsiveness to citizens needs and choices. Application of the principle

of subsidiarity in such exercises should be strongly advocated.

Support strengthening of Regional and National associations of Local Government

Authorities, NGOs, CBOs and civil society organizations, to enable them to more

effectively promote, lobby for and represent local government and community interests

in the region. Development of strong networking links with international local

government and NGO/civil society associations should help to strengthen their regional

counterparts, and provide channels for the exchange of experiences and best practices.

Seek recognition for Local Government and Community Affairs (which includes the role

of 27

of civil society in governance), to be regarded as a distinct sub-sector, and treated

accordingly. This can be achieved by inclusion of the subject on the Agenda of Caricom

Heads of Government Meetings, and establishment of a Caricom Ministers Meeting for

this subject, to give focus to the issues of decentralization, strength-ening of local

government, civil society participation in governance, and empowerment of communities.

This would provide a regional forum to develop and pursue strategies for advancing the

sub-sector.

Promulgation of a Regional Policy and Strategic Plan of Action as proposed will depend firstly

on recognition by regional governments of the critical role which this sub-sector can play in

addressing many deficiencies in the current practice of governance and public management in the

region, and therefore the need to develop clear policy positions on the issues involved. It will also

require collaboration and support from relevant regional institutions, and from international

agencies which have been active in sponsoring local government reform and community

participation initiatives in the region. Participation in this process of groups throughout the

region which have an interest in the issues is essential. The following would assist in moving this

idea forward.

1. Identification of a lead agency which will spearhead preparation of the policy. The

Caricom Secretariat and/or the UWI would be the best candidates for this role.

2. Endorsement of the exercise by Caribbean governments, probably through the Caricom

Heads of Government Meeting. This could be facilitated by the preparation of a project

proposal which would be reviewed by the major stakeholders, and then submitted to the

Heads for their consideration

3. Support from regional tertiary institutions in respect to research and scholarship; and

from associations of local government authorities and civil society organizations in the

region.

4. International agencies involved in promoting good governance and democratic values

should find this a very worthwhile effort to support. The outcome should provide them

with an excellent framework to determine future support in this area, as well as ensure

coherence and avoid duplication and/or gaps.

APPENDIX ONE STATUS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CARICOM-MEMBER STATES

of 27

Country

Existing form of

Local Govt

Legal

Framework

Active LG/Decent.

Reform Initiative

Intended legal status

of reformed LG

Antigua/Barbuda

*

District Councils #

Administrative

Decree

Yes

No change to existing

legal status

Barbados

None

N/A

No

None

Bahamas

District Councils

(based on islands)

Act of Parliament

Yes

Review of existing

Act of Parliament

Belize

City & Town

Councils

Act of Parliament

No

N/A

Dominica

District Councils

Act of Parliament

Yes

Not Determined

Grenada

Non operational

Constitution

Under review

Guyana

Multi-tiered

Constitutional

No

N/A

Haiti

Multi-tiered

Constitution

No

N/A

Jamaica

Municipal and

Parish Councils

Act of Parliament

Yes

Constitution

St Kitts/Nevis*

None

St Lucia

Suspended

Acts of

Parliament

Yes

Act of Parliament

St Vincent/

Grenadines*

District Councils

Administrative

Decree

No

N/A

Trinidad/Tobago*

Regional & Muni-

cipal Corporations

Act of Parliament

No

N/A

* These are twin island states whose Constitutions give some form local autonomy to the

smaller island.

# Districts are the administrative divisions into which several islands are divided for the

purposes of local level administration. The District Councils are the bodies established to

direct and have responsibility for such functions and tasks which are carried out at the

of 27

District level. Members are usually nominated by Central Government, but in some

instances are comprised of both nominated and elected members.

APPENDIX TWO

STATISTICS ON MEMBER COUNTRIES OF CARICOM

Country Size (Sq.

Km)

Population

Official

Language

Colonial Power

Present Political

Status

Antigua/Barbuda

442

68,612(96)

English

British

independ. Nov.

1981

Barbados

431

265,918(96)

English

British

independ. Nov.1996

Bahamas

13,864

283,901(96)

English

British

independ. July 1973

Belize

21,500

238,500

English

British

Parliamentary

democracy

Dominica

288.9

72,000(96)

English

British

independ/Republica

n system

Dominican Rep.

48,442

8,000,000

Spanish

Spain

Independent

Grenada

345

120,000

English

British

Independent

Guyana

215,083

850,000

English

British

Independent

Haiti

27,400

8,500,000

French

French

Independent 1802

Jamaica

10,991

2,553,496(97)

English

Spanish/British

independ.Aug.1962

Montserrat

103

10,608(95)

English

British

Colony

St Kitts/Nevis

269

42,280(96)

English

British

independ Sep. 1983

St Lucia

616

154,000

English

French/British

independ. Feb. 1979

St Vincent/Grenadines

389

111,214(96)

English

French/British

independ. Oct.1979

Suriname

163,820

408,041(95)

Dutch

Dutch

independ./Republic

Nov. 1975

of 27

Country

Size (Sq.

Km)

Population

Official

Language

Colonial Power

Present Political

Status

Trinidad/Tobago 5,182 1,263,616(96) English French/British independ./Republic

Aug. 1962

Study on Decentralization in the Caribbean (English)

Documents

Transcript of Study on Decentralization in the Caribbean (English)