This article explores the political dynamics surrounding the Eastern Provincial Council during Sri Lanka’s post-war transition. We show that decentralisation constituted an intervention in conflict, rather than a solution to it. It creates new institutional arenas to re-negotiate centre-periphery relations, resulting in new forms of political mobilisation. There are crucial spatial dimensions to these contentions: it involves contested territorialisation of power, scalar manoeuvring, and boundary drawing. These are explored in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, with particular reference to the role performed by brokers in mediating centre-periphery relations, through and alongside the Provincial Council.

In November 2016, the Colombian Government and the insurgent FARC signed a final peace agreement. Central to the accord is what the parties call ‘territorial peacebuilding’, a long-term strategy to integrate Colombia’s vast (rural) hinterlands into the nation’s legal political system and economy. ‘Territorial peacebuilding’ follows on from decentralisation and security consolidation, both of which experienced problems, however, ultimately falling short of integrating Colombia. To be more effective now it is imperative to devise a governance strategy for territorial peacebuilding that includes the subnational political and administrative entities, enhances citizen participation and protects local governments from capture by criminal interests.

Sierra Leone is widely cited as a positive example of the contribution that decentralisation can play in post-conflict reconstruction. This article critically examines this viewpoint from a political economy perspective as applied to an understanding of donor-driven institutional reform as well as the nature of hybridity and its impact on the sustainability of decentralisation processes. It examines the devolution of functions, finance, political and administrative powers, as well as its impact on three aspects of human development – primary health, basic education and rural water supply. The article concludes that external pressure can indeed ‘lock-in’ reforms but that a more nuanced, iterative and locally contextualised approach based on sound political economy analysis is needed in order to foster and sustain reform gains.

This study examines the challenges that threaten one of Africa’s most ambitious experiments in political, administrative and fiscal decentralization. Based on extensive interviews with local government leaders throughout Uganda, the research uncovered a complex interplay of conflicts that impact decision-making effectiveness. The sources of these conflicts center around (a) the impact of national politics on local government as the country approaches the 2011 election, (b) the inability to meet rising citizen demand for services as the tax base of local governments continues to erode, (c) the corrosive impact of social conflicts stemming mostly from poverty and illiteracy complicated by tribal and ethnic differences, and (d) the challenges of developing honest and effective leadership in local government. Can Uganda unravel this web of conflicts to bring meaningful governance to this young nation? Indeed, many countries within the developing world are watching this experiment with a great deal of interest.

It is often claimed that decentralisation is effective for the reduction of poverty due to inherent opportunities for higher popular participation and increased efficiency in public service delivery. This paper is a qualitative assessment of the potential of the Ugandan decentralisation reform for poverty alleviation. The Ugandan government initiated an ambitious decentralisation reform in 1992, which represents an example of full-fledged devolution with the transfer of far-reaching responsibilities to local governments. However, several shortcomings, such as low levels of accountability, insufficient human and financial resources, corruption, patronage, and central resistance to decentralisation, constrain the proper implementation of the reform, putting improvements in participation and efficiency at risk and ultimately jeopardising the intended impact on poverty.