Survey results:Advanced seminar -Decentralisation and Local Governance         ECDPM       Session 1.2
General remarksTHANK YOU! We received 20 surveys (for 29 Delegations)•  General tendency towards decentralisation:  In pro...
AUTHORITARIAN                          REGIMESERITREA                           BURKINA FASO(Authoritarian + fragile state...
Authoritarian regimes•  Both have low decentralisation but with some   progress (Burkina Faso)•  No access to local actors...
HYBRID                REGIMES       SRI LANKA   MALDIVESCAMBODIA           UKRAINE
Hybrid regimes•  Low decentralisation but with progress (Cambodia   & Maldives), status quo (Sri Lanka) or even   recentra...
EMERGING                  DEMOCRACIESAFGHANISTAN    EGYPT         GUATEMALA               DOMINICANPAKISTAN       REPUBLIC...
Emerging Democracies•  Low decentralisation contexts (except for Morroco   and Egypt)•  Weak local institutions (Morocco, ...
ESTABLISHED     DEMOCRACIESGHANA         KENYALESOTHO       ZAMBIA
Established democracies•  Level of decentralisation is still low, except for   Ghana (moderate)•  Two cases (Ghana, Kenya)...
FRAGILE     STATEGHANA     KENYACAR          LEBANONLESOTHO   ZAMBIA
Fragile States•  Government declarations but no real dialogue   (both)•  So decentralisation level is low and little   ind...
Main Successes①  Professionalization and capacity development of   LAs②  Use variety of modalities to support   decentrali...
Main Weaknesses①  Lack of coordination between donors, different   political levels within the country②  Lack of strategic...
Overall aspects•  The main entry point used by Delegations to engage   with decentralisation is “Other indirect support (e...
Overall aspects•  Little use of Political Economy Analysis to understand the   context in which you operate (20%)•  Involv...
Buzz groups①  What are the main sources of information that   help you establish your opinion (to fill in this   survey an...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Presentation of the key findings coming out of the survey sent to participants in advance – ecdpm

323 views
219 views

Published on

Published in: Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
323
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation of the key findings coming out of the survey sent to participants in advance – ecdpm

  1. 1. Survey results:Advanced seminar -Decentralisation and Local Governance ECDPM Session 1.2
  2. 2. General remarksTHANK YOU! We received 20 surveys (for 29 Delegations)•  General tendency towards decentralisation: In progress Status quo Recentralisation Zigzagging 55% 35% 5% 5%•  But the degree of decentralisation is still (very) low: Low Medium High Decentralisation Decentralisation Decentralisation 80% 15% 5%
  3. 3. AUTHORITARIAN REGIMESERITREA BURKINA FASO(Authoritarian + fragile state) (Authoritarian but emerging democracy)
  4. 4. Authoritarian regimes•  Both have low decentralisation but with some progress (Burkina Faso)•  No access to local actors, decentralised project was halted by the government (Eritrea)•  No real political will to decentralise (Burkina Faso)•  Attempts to at least coordinate the donors
  5. 5. HYBRID REGIMES SRI LANKA MALDIVESCAMBODIA UKRAINE
  6. 6. Hybrid regimes•  Low decentralisation but with progress (Cambodia & Maldives), status quo (Sri Lanka) or even recentralisation (Ukraine)•  No policy dialogue around decentralisation (Sri Lanka, Ukraine)•  Capacity building of CSOs in engagement with government (SL-Maldives)•  Some successes in increasing decentralisation ownership to government (Cambodia)
  7. 7. EMERGING DEMOCRACIESAFGHANISTAN EGYPT GUATEMALA DOMINICANPAKISTAN REPUBLIC MOROCCO MOZAMBIQUE RWANDA
  8. 8. Emerging Democracies•  Low decentralisation contexts (except for Morroco and Egypt)•  Weak local institutions (Morocco, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Mozambique)•  So a lot of support focuses on strengthening Local Authorities (DR, Morocco, Mozambique, Rwanda & Pakistan)•  Involvement of LAs in policy dialogue processes remains low across the board
  9. 9. ESTABLISHED DEMOCRACIESGHANA KENYALESOTHO ZAMBIA
  10. 10. Established democracies•  Level of decentralisation is still low, except for Ghana (moderate)•  Two cases (Ghana, Kenya) of top-down support and two (Lesotho, Zambia) of bottom-up support to decentralisation•  High level of LA involvement in policy dialogue processes (Kenya)•  Lack of coordination at ministerial level still a major bottleneck (Lesotho, Ghana)
  11. 11. FRAGILE STATEGHANA KENYACAR LEBANONLESOTHO ZAMBIA
  12. 12. Fragile States•  Government declarations but no real dialogue (both)•  So decentralisation level is low and little indication of progress (both)•  Attempt to work through “structured dialogue” with LAs (Lebanon)•  Low territorial control of the state (CAR)
  13. 13. Main Successes①  Professionalization and capacity development of LAs②  Use variety of modalities to support decentralisation③  Coordinate the approaches of the donors to achieve higher leverage④  Involve LAs at the implementation level⑤  Direct support to domestic and social accountability⑥  Dialogue and confidence building through regular meetings⑦  Focus on the democratic aspects of decentralisation
  14. 14. Main Weaknesses①  Lack of coordination between donors, different political levels within the country②  Lack of strategic vision at the national political level③  EC support is only targeting the traditional sectors and focused on the central and not local level④  Little space for decentralisation processes⑤  Decentralisation is not a focus within the Delegation
  15. 15. Overall aspects•  The main entry point used by Delegations to engage with decentralisation is “Other indirect support (e.g. enhancing democratic participation at local level” (75%)•  Engagement with the political dimensions of decentralisation remains moderate (55%) to low (35%)•  The main roles played by the Delegations are •  Raising awareness on the importance of key reforms (60%) •  Helping to structure national policy dialogue processes (50%) •  Providing ‘embedded’ TA in support of reform processes (65%)
  16. 16. Overall aspects•  Little use of Political Economy Analysis to understand the context in which you operate (20%)•  Involvement of LAs in policy dialogue processes is very low at national level (85-100%) but also with donors (60%) and EUDs (55%)•  A lot of demand for operational guidance, esp. PEA, Budget support to decentralised levels and Performance based grant systems
  17. 17. Buzz groups①  What are the main sources of information that help you establish your opinion (to fill in this survey and in your daily work)?②  List three things that shocked or surprised you when hearing the synthesis of the experiences in the different delegations?

×