In 2000, the Rwandan government began the phased introduction of a decentralisation programme throughout the country. The programme aimed at countering citizen’s exploitation and marginalisation – a principal driver of the 1994 genocide – through broad-based participation in local development planning. This article analyses the extent to which Rwanda’s evolving decentralisation process is meeting this aim. Tracking a shift in emphasis from local political participation to economic growth, it argues that increased technocratisation and centralised control combined with poor policy responsiveness and low levels of local government legitimacy are undermining post-conflict reconstruction.

Local governments have been explicitly recognised in the suite of international agreements, collectively known as the post-2015 Development Agenda. However, in post-conflict, in-conflict or fragile situations, the role of local governments and decentralisation processes more generally becomes even more complex than ‘normal’ development contexts. In the best-case scenario, decentralisation can be a tool to empower local communities, rebuild trust and transform conflicts. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it can be an instrument of domination or a new avenue for extending and firmly entrenching rent-seeking behaviour, eventually exacerbating conflict. This paper applies a practitioner’s lens to the papers included in this collection. It also draws on the author’s own experiences, most recently in Myanmar, which is emerging from international isolation, witnessing a huge and rapid economic and physical transformation, yet battling conflicts on several fronts. The role of local governments in this complex landscape is dynamic and rapidly evolving. The paper concludes by summarising the challenges faced by local governments in conflict, post-conflict and fragile contexts, and acknowledges the remarkable mobilisation and sustained advocacy by several local government associations and networks, many of which also came together under the umbrella of the Global Task Force of Local and Regional Governments.

The second edition of this popular and authoritative text provides a truly global assessment of democratization in theory and practice in the contemporary world. It has been systematically revised and updated throughout to cover recent developments, from the impact of 9/11 and EU enlargement to the war in Iraq.

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.