Seen as a solution to a multiplicity of problems, and applied in a wide cross-section of contexts, decentralization in public administration has been a common strategy in intergovernmental systems around the globe for over 30... [ view full abstract ]
Seen as a solution to a multiplicity of problems, and applied in a wide cross-section of contexts, decentralization in public administration has been a common strategy in intergovernmental systems around the globe for over 30 years (World Bank, 1999). Support for this movement emerged in scholarly thought as well, in that the New Public Management paradigm promoted decentralization of public administration as being more efficient, more responsive to each unique context, and closer to the citizens (Obsborne & Geabler, 1992). However limitations of decentralization have become evident in more recent years, such as the potential for corruption, and for the erosion of local government capacity. At the extreme, such practices can promote the interests of elites, thereby potentially promoting systems that advance the interests of some at the expense of others. In short, decentralization has the potential to serve as a vehicle for extending mechanisms for structural inequality. These issues have led to questions regarding what ways and to what extent devolving control to local government is really tenable, and whether particular limits exist for the role of the local tier of government. Yet even as these questions arise, the public management paradigms of the new millennium such as New Public Service (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000), New Public Governance, (Osborne, 2013) or the various strands of other post-NPM thought (Christensen, 2012; Dunleavy 2006) speak to the importance of citizen engagement in policy and accountability. And in particular, the New Public Governance notes the role of citizen engagement in ensuring “effectiveness” of public service. Reflecting on the call in these paradigms, and drawing on sociological literature regarding boundaries, identity and social relations (Tilly, 2005), this paper will engage the question of the potential limits for local government. First, this paper will make the case that the local tier of government remains a critical location for engaging that citizen voice, and that solutions exist for the noted challenges associated with decentralization. Following that, the article will outline two proposals: First, it will articulate the relational roles for other tiers of government as part of an integrated system that both supports and holds accountable the local tier of government for ensuring the legitimacy of citizen voice in policy and budgetary decisions. This includes active engagement of the civil sector at the local level. Second, it will describe the vital role of both an upward and downward system of accountability and transparency. In particular, it will argue that the hallmark of effective service provision must be equity in critical outcome markers across demographic groups, i.e., poverty rates, health care outcomes, incarceration rates, and life expectancy rates. The article will illustrate these arguments using examples taken from the U.S. context.
