1. LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT IN NEPAL:
A Study of Western Development
Region (1990 - 2002)
YOGENDRA RAJ RIJAL
TU Reg. No.: 11496-87
Ph.D. Reg. No.: 18/067 (Shrawan)
2/14/2016 1
2. An overview of the presentation
1. Problem statement
2. Research questions
3. Objectives of the study
4. Study area and methodology
5. Limitation of the study
6. Organization of the report
7. Major findings
8. Recommendations
2/14/2016 2
3. 1. Problem statement
Difficulty to maintain autonomy, authority and
accountability in local body;
Poor performance in responsive, responsible, and
accountable local governance;
Inability in maintaining rule of law at all level and
strengthening democratic system;
Insufficient capacity of local bodies;
Conceptual clarity about local autonomy (among
people and officials) is yet to be declared; and
Declining active citizenship in political and
development process.2/14/2016 3
4. 2. Research questions
What are the constraints and implications of
responsive, responsible, and accountable local
government?
What is the position of decentralization
measure taken by the state in Nepal? and
What are the main constraints and challenges
to the devolution of power in full phase under
the LSGA 1999?
2/14/2016 4
5. 3. Objectives of the study
1. To examine and diagnose the main constraints and
implications of responsive, responsible, and
accountable local government;
2. To review and analyze the decentralization
measures taken by the state promoting
participatory democracy at the grass-root between
1990 to 2002; and
3. To identify the problems in the field of actual
devolution of power and authority in practice
under LSGA 1999 and its regulation 1999.
2/14/2016 5
6. 4. Study area and methodology
Five districts of WDR were selected to obtain
fresh information;
Mustang from mountain; Tanahu, Syangja, and
Palpa from hill; and Nawalparasi from Terai were
visited;
15 local bodies (13 VDCs and 2 municipalities)
were visited during field survey;
Stratified random sampling method was applied
to select community level respondents;
2/14/2016 6
7. Cont…
Information related mainly to following three
issues were tried to obtain from community level:
a. level of people's participation in local level decision-
making and their satisfaction towards LBs
performance;
b. downward accountability;
c. transparency in LBs or their financial health; and
d. Causes of poor performance of LBs, and measures
for improvement.
2/14/2016 7
8. Cont…
District and central level key personnel for interview
were pre determined to discuss some policy issues;
469 respondents (435 in community level and 34 in
district level) were consulted during field survey.
Discussion with the help of check list (at district and
central level);
Researcher himself carried out field survey; and
Simple statistical tools such as ratio, percentage,
and frequencies were used to describe general
analytical outlook of the data collected.
2/14/2016 8
9. Targeted respondents
Level Respondents
Community General public (randomly visited)
District LDO, Planning Officer, District Facilitator
of LGCDP, and Engineer etc.
Central LBFC, LGCDP, and Association of local
bodies: ADDCN, MuAN, and NAVIN
2/14/2016 9
11. Grassroots
level survey
Grassroots
level survey
Grassroots
level survey
Grassroots
level survey
Grassroots
level survey
Discussion
with DDC
official
Discussion
with DDC
official
Discussion
with DDC
official
Discussion
with DDC
official
Discussion
with DDC
official
Triangulation of
information collected
Discussion with central
level stakeholders
Report
preparation
2/14/2016 11
12. 5. Limitation of the study
• Focused only on specific period 1990 to 2002;
• It may/does not replicate the whole range of issues
of the local self-government;
• Most of the problems related with national and
international issues are left untouched;
• More specifically, examined the major constraints
in devolution of power and authority to local body;
and
• Attention has been given on analyzing the
decentralization programme in Nepal in the way to
local self-governance.2/14/2016 12
13. 6. Organization of the report
Report is organized in 7 chapters
1. Introduction
2. Historical trends of local self-government system in
Nepal
3. Local self-government in SAARC countries
4. Decentralization in Nepal
5. Constraints and challenges on devolution under
LSGA
6. Analysis with an overview of study area
7. Major findings, conclusion and recommendations2/14/2016 13
15. 1. Problem in conceptual clarity of autonomy
No autonomy in financing and staffing in LBs;
LBs are always abided by the directions of upper
tiers of government rather than voters;
Sign board of local body (mainly DDC) often make
ambiguous whether they are autonomous or not;
VDC secretary were not ready to get salary from
VDC and opposed to government decision;
In most cases line agencies seen more powerful than
local bodies; and
LBs are found mostly entertained in delegated task
rather than devolved authority.2/14/2016 15
16. 2. Accountability and transparency
Ambiguous roles and functions of LBs in hierarchal
structure;
Clause 238 of LSGA strengthened the upward chain of
control over LBs;
Office bearers often unwilling to give information to
public about the resources they allocate and used;
Publicize the income and expenditure to fulfill only the
mandatory provision of Minimum Conditions and
Performance Measurement (MCPM); and
No provision of recall and vote of no confidence in
LBs.
2/14/2016 16
17. 3. Irregularities
No public auditing and social auditing is done prior to
handover and clearance of development project by local
bodies [Clause 201 (a) of LBFAR 2007];
Planning steps (8 steps) often overlapped by VDCs and
municipalities;
No citizens are informed while awarding contract;
Budget for social security is misused in more cases and
targeted group development budget is also twisted; and
Level of clearance of advance amount is poor, once
contract made with LB for development projects they
often not completed and cleared up to more than three
years.2/14/2016 17
18. 4. LBs' Institutional capacity
Functionary is so weak as compare to fund and
function of LBs;
LBs are act as a pure development agency not as local
level policy making legislative institution;
Not able to generate revenue locally;
LBs are act as an agent of central government not as
autonomous institution; and
LBs destination is not clear where they want to head
because almost all of them have no periodic plan which
make mandatory by LSGA 1999 [clause 43] (local
political actors are often not ready to make periodic2/14/2016 18
19. 5. Empowerment level of local people
Local people have no concern to LBs activities and
fully relied to traditional leaders/local elites;
Unknown about to where and in which sector
budget is allocated and what is the position of
clearance;
Targeted people themselves still unknown about
targeted group development program;
People's participation in development process
(planning to implementation) is declining; and
No careful about what is going on, and what
should be done for their betterment?2/14/2016 19
20. 6. Structural constraints and hierarchy
LB's key posts are centrally recruited and
controlled;
Transfer of elected representative (some time);
Neither the LBs are called local govt., nor
duplicated clauses of various other acts are
amended;
Power hierarchy among line ministry and other
layers of LB; and
Political system itself responsible in some extent
to create power hierarchy.2/14/2016 20
21. 7. Psychological barriers
Centre always fear from whether the power and
authority is reduced;
LSGA made LBs semi judicial authority, they can
get loan with the collateral of central
government and taxing authority, but not
implemented yet.
2/14/2016 21
22. 8. Recommendations:
1. Non political basis of local election (to control
fragmentation of local people);
2. Financial and administrative autonomy to LBs;
3. Empower people for democratic control and build
up LBs institutional capacity;
4. Constitutional provision for LBs and reduce
numbers of LBs;
5. Build up conceptual clarity about local autonomy
through civic education;
6. Take away ambiguities to make LBs more
autonomous and responsive towards people;2/14/2016 22
23. Cont...
7. Remove parallel institutions and take out dubious
mechanism such as nagar bikash samitees;
8.Make long-term or periodic plan and develop
result based service delivery and monitoring
system; and
9.Effective coordination and linkages among local
development stakeholders.
2/14/2016 23
24. Thanks for listening me
and welcome for
Suggestions and Comments, Please.2/14/2016 24
