A Report aimed at fostering sustainable economic, social and environmental development across the Commonwealth, featuring perspectives from some of the world's leading commentators.

It is evident that administrative reforms are undertaken by many countries in the world today and in fact, administrative change appears to be a constant factor in regimes that desire to reform their social, political and economic systems. Normally, reform initiatives are regarded as necessary for organizations that want to adapt to the changing environment and to be able to expand and cope with increasing activities and global challenges. Nevertheless, strategies for reform initiatives will differ between sectors and also between nations as each country tries to handle reform in accordance with the country’s administrative traditions, political and cultural nuances and level of economic development. The process of reform may involve a particular sector or administration of the government or an entire level of the government such as the local government. The main characteristic of administrative reform is normally projected in attempts to decentralize powers and autonomy to lower levels of government. It connotes importance that such transition of powers is supposedly significant to the unification and development of a nation. This is especially so, as some studies have shown, where the shift of power to local government has created a series of hierarchically ordered units of administration at some of the lowest levels of government. The implication is a movement of power from the centre and may determine the scope of decentralization, nonetheless it involves a transition process that ultimately may change the characteristics of power structure of the different levels of government.

I examine decentralization through the lens of the local dynamics it unleashed in Bangladesh. I argue that the national effects of decentralization are largely the sum of its local-level effects. Hence to understand decentralization we must first understand how local government works. This implies analysing not only decentralization, but also democracy, from the bottom up. I present a model of local government responsiveness as the product of political openness and substantive competition. The quality of politics, in turn, emerges endogenously as a joint product of the lobbying and political engagement of local firms/interests, and the organizational density and ability of civil society. I then test these ideas using qualitative data from Bangladesh. The evidence shows that civic organizations worked with NGOs and local governments to effect transformative change from the grassroots upwards – not just to public budgets and outputs, but to the underlying behaviours and ideas that underpin social development. In the aggregate, these effects were powerful. The result, key development indicators show, is Bangladesh leap-frogging past much wealthier India between 1990 and 2015.

August 2007 saw the release of 'Funding Local Government', the report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry (available at www.ratesinquiry.govt.nz). New Zealand local government has one of the world's most flexible rating (property tax) systems. Councils may choose between capital value, land value or annual (rental) value. Rates may be levied primarily as an ad valorem charge but councils may also use a variety of fixed charges. In addition they may levy a targeted rate or rates, which may be either a fixed amount or ad valorem, charged on a single property or category of properties to recover the cost of a specific service or services. Councils also have the power, in consultation with their communities, to adopt highly flexible postponement policies allowing people to defer, indefinitely, payment of rates. (Normally when this is done, councils take a first charge on the property and recover interest at their marginal cost of borrowing.)