Administrative Decentralization and Local Government
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY AT NAMUTUMBA DISTRICT BY NAMUKUVE FLORENCE 1163-06404-0.7143 A RESEARCH DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELORS DEGREE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSI’l’Y SEPTEMBER, 2019 DECLARATION I, Namukuve Florence, do hereby declare that the ~sork presented in this proposal arises out of my own research: I certify that it has never been submitted or examined in any university as an academic requirement for any award. Sign Date - NAMUKUVE FLORENCE APPROVAL This proposal has been submitted with the approval of Mr. Kamya Emmanuel as the University Supervisor. Signed Date of Approval ~ (Supervisor) ~.‘° ~ MR. KAMYA EMMANUEL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am deeply indebted to my parents, brothers and sisters all the support they have rendered to me in the completion of a Bachelors Degree in Public Administration, am most grateful! Secondly am grateful to my supervisor Mr. Kamya Emmanuel for his overwhelming support and supervision in the compilation of this research. Lastly but not least, I would love to acknowledge all my former classmates, friends and everyone who has been of great importance to the conclusion of this research. III TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION .1 APPROVAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CI-IAPTERONE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Introduction 1 • I Background of the study 1 1.1.1 Historical background perspective 2 1.1.2 Theoretical perspective 6 1.1.3 Conceptual perspective 6 1.1.4 Contextual perspective 7 1.2 Statement of the problem S 1.3 Purpose of the Stud) 1.4 Objectives of the study 1.5 Research Questions 1.6 Research Hypothesis 10 I .7 Conceptual frame work 10 1.8 significance of the Study 11 1.9 Justification of the Study 12 1.10 Scope of the study 12 1.10.1 Geographical Scope 12 iv 1.l0.2TimeScope .13 1.10.3 content Scope 13 .1 I Operational definitions 13 1.11.1 Decentralization 13 .1 I .2 DeconcentratiOn 14 1.11.3 Delegation 14 .11.4 Devolution 14 CHAPTER TWO 15 LITERATURE REVIEW 15 2.1 Introduction 15 2.2 Theoretical Review 15 2.2.1 Systems Theory 15 2.3 Deconcentration and Local government service delivery 16 2.4 Delegationand Local government Service delivery 18 2.5 Devolutionand Local government service delivery 21 2.6 Summary of literature 22 CHAPTER THREE 23 METHODOLOGY 23 3.1 Introduction 23 3.2 Research Design 23 3.3 Study Population 23 V 3.4 Sample size and selection .24 3.5 Sampling techniques& procedures 25 3.6 Data collection methods (Primary & Secondary Sources) 25 3.6.1 Primary Sources 25 3.6.2 Interview method 25 3.6.3 Questionnaire Survey 26 3.6.4 Focus Group Discussion 26 3.6.5 Secondary sources 26 3.6.6 Data collection instruments 26 3.6.7 Pre testing (Validity & Reliability) of Data Collection Instruments 27 3.6.8 Validity of data collection Instruments 27 3.7 Reliability of Data Collection Instruments 28 3.8 Ethical Considerations 28 3.9 Limitations to the study 29 CHAPTER FOUR 30 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 30 4.1 Introduction 30 4.2 What is the relationship between deconcentration and service delivery at Namutumba local government7 32 4.3 What is the relationship between delegation and service delivery at Namutumba local government7 vi 4.4 What is the relationship between devolution and service delivery at Namutumba local government9 4.5 Decentralization and Service Delivery in Namutumba district for Uganda 35 4.6 Failures and Challenges of Decentralisation as Policy for Improving Service Delivery in Uganda 37 CHAPTER FIVE 43 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43 5.0 Introduction 43 5.1 Summary of the Study 5.2 Conclusion on the findings 46 5.3 Recommendations 48 5.4 Suggestions for further studies 49 5.4.1 Education 5.4.2 Health 50 5.4.3 Agricultural extension 50 5.4.4 Natural resource management 51 REFERENCES 52 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Questionnaire 55 Appendix II: Estimated Study Budget from April to September 2019 56 VII CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction The study focuses on administrative decentralization and service delivery at Namutumba district Local government. In this study administrative decentralization will be conceived as the independent variable whereas service delivery as the dependent variable. According to scholars like Bardhan, (2006), decentralization relates to the transfer of responsibility for planning, management, resource-raising and allocation from the central government to (a) field units of central government ministries or agencies; (b) subordinate units or levels of government; (c) semi-autonomous public authorities or corporations; (d) area-wide regional or functional authorities; or (e) NGOs/PVO5 (Bardhan, 2006). This frees up top management to focus more on major decisions. Despite the existing forms of decentralization such as fiscal, administrative, federalism and aggregate decentralization, the study explores administrative decentralization in relation to service delivery at Namutumba local government. This chapter therefore presents the background to the study, the problem statement, and the objectives of the study, the research questions, the hypotheses, conceptual framework, and significance of studs, justification of the study, study scope and operational definitions. 1.1 Background of the study This sub section presents the background to the study structured under the historical, theoretical, conceptual and contextual perspectives. 1 1.1.1 Historical background perspective An increasing number of countries are decentralizing the administrative, fiscal, and political functions of the central government to lower-level governments. Although these decentralization efforts are typically politically motivated, they have profound impacts on economies by influencing, among other things, governance in the public sector, including public services (Omar. et cii., 1999). The need to decentralize development planning and management has become a recurring theme in the plans and policies of international assistance agencies and developing nations in recent years (Richard., 2008). With the shifting emphasis in development strategies toward promoting more socially equitable economic growth and meeting the basic needs of the poorest groups in developing societies, widespread participation in decision-making is considered essential to the development process, and decentralization has been advocated as a way of eliciting that participation. An important aspect of performance measurement in local government is its customer orientation. Local government focuses on increasing benefits and decreasing negative consequences of service delivery (Maureen., 2007). Since its formal introduction into the professional world in the I 950s, the concept of performance measurement in service delivery has been implemented across a wide range of professional applications within local governments (Nicola., 2002). Whether it is applied within law enforcement, social services, public works, education, or economic development, performance measurement in local government can be a powerftl tool to help elected officials and their staffs improve the quality, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of services or programs. In the early years of performance measurement, it was clear that state and local governments did not have adequate information on the efficaciousness of existing services. In contrast, 2 today’s performance measurement activities, such as tracking outcomes and service quality, have become common aspects of management processes ~Nicola., 2002). Yet, even with the tremendous advances in service delivery, there are still new technologies that can improve performance measurement and stimulate potential progress. Until the mid-1990s, local governments lacked one of the most important components of performance measurement geography. Notably. there are three major forms of administrative decentralization at local governments identified as: deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (Jefferey., 2007). Each form raises different legal issues in a country’s development. Whereas deconcentration involves redistributing decision making authority, financial and management responsibilities among different levels, delegation involves a national government transferring responsibility for decision making and administration of public functions to semi-autonomous public sector organizations such as hospital corporations (Kutchcroft., 2001). It also relates to the passing over authority by one person who is at a superior position to someone else who is subordinate to him thus a downward assignment of authority, whereby the manager allocates work among subordinates. Local governments (also known as local councils) handle community needs like waste collection, public recreation facilities and town planning. The state or territory government defines the powers of the local governments, and decides what geographical areas those governments are responsible for. During the administrative decentralization (also called deconcentratiOn) central government ministries transfer some functions to regional or local outposts, perhaps by moving personnel to a particular location or assigning new responsibilities to staff in those branch offices (Jefferey., 2007). DeconcentratiOn may bring services closer to citizens, but generally preserves the hierarchal relationship between central offices and field staff It therefore does 3 not necessarily increase the voice or involvement or citizens in resource management and government