This paper explores ways to bring members of all age groups into the political process and to find mechanisms for cooperation within democratic governance processes. The inclusion of the intergenerational perspective would benefit young people, the elderly and society as a whole

This book offers insights and lessons that help us understand when the answer is “Yes”, and when it is “No”. It shows us how decentralisation can be designed to drive development forward, and focuses attention on how institutional incentives can be created for governments to improve public sector performance and strengthen economies in ways that enhance citizen well-being. It also draws attention to the political motives behind decentralisation reforms and how these shape the institutions that result. The book's purpose is to marry policy makers’ detailed knowledge and insights about real reform processes with academics’ conceptual clarity and analytical rigor. This synthesis naturally shifts the analysis towards deeper questions of decentralization, stability and the strength of the State. The book explores these in Part 1, with deep studies of the effects of reform on state capacity, political and fiscal stability, and democratic inclusiveness in Bolivia, Pakistan, India, and Latin America more broadly. These complex questions—crucially important to policy makers but difficult to address with statistics—yield before a multipronged attack of quantitative and qualitative evidence combined with deep practitioner insight. How should reformers design decentralisation? Part 2 examines these issues with evidence from four decades of reform in developing and developed countries. What happens after reform is implemented? Decentralization and Local Service Provision turns to decentralization’s effects on health and education services, anti-poverty programs, etc. with original evidence from twelve countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

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.

We review recent evidence regarding decentralization and state strength and argue that decentralization can deepen democracy without compromising state strength if adequately designed. We examine how decentralization affects five key aspects of state strength: 1) Authority over territory and people, 2) Conflict prevention, 3) Policy autonomy and the ability to uphold the law, 4) Responsive, accountable service provision, and 5) Social learning. We provide specific reform paths that should lead to strengthening in each. Decentralizing below the level of social cleavages should drain secessionist pressure by peeling away moderate citizens from radical leaders. The regional specificity of elite interests is key. If regional elites have more to lose than gain from national schism, they will not invest in politicians and conflicts that promote secession. Strong accountability mechanisms and national safeguards of minority rights can align local leaders’ incentives with citizens’, so promoting power-sharing and discouraging local capture or oppression. “Fragmentation of authority” is a mistaken inference; what decentralization really does is transform politics from top-down to bottom-up, embracing many localities and their concerns. The state moves from a simpler, brittler command structure to one based on overlapping authority and complex complementarity, where government is more robust to failure in any of its parts. Well-designed reform, focusing on services with low economies of scale, with devolved taxation and bail-outs prohibited, should increase public accountability. Lastly, we advance a novel way that decentralization can strengthen democracy: by allowing citizens to become political actors in their own right, the small scale of local politics should promote social learning-by-doing, so strengthening political legitimacy, state-building, and ‘democratic suppleness’ from the grassroots upwards.