Decentralisation as new public policies

The difficulties—and even the decline—of many empires are often attributed to the poor management of their provinces. From the Abbasid Empire to the Roman Empire, and even Isaac Asimov’s all-powerful Galactic Empire in his Foundation saga, uprisings and revolts “come from the borders,” to quote the Chinese military strategist Sun Bin.

So, if a centralised and unitary power entails risks and weaknesses in administering its territory, decentralisation, conversely, presents itself as an ideal political model for the citizens of the governed territory. At least, that is what the whole world seemed to decide at the beginning of the 1980s, a decade that saw the emergence of economic and social policies shifting responsibilities away from central administrations to lower levels: in Mitterrand’s France, followed by Germany, part of Europe, several African countries, and then the Middle East. Today, we are witnessing a renewed momentum in the implementation of decentralisation policies—whether at the national level, within European institutions, or on a global scale.

Decentralisation: why and how?

The advantages of this global phenomenon, its stakes, and its controversies lie in its definition. What this political system enables and prevents, and the observable outcomes when it is applied, vary—but one trend stands out. Whereas centralisation establishes a single decision-making centre and does not distinguish national power from local power, decentralisation, by contrast, makes it possible to create multiple decision-making centres that are relatively independent, without going so far as full autonomy.

Decentralisation is a fundamental means of improving local governance, adapting public decisions to the needs of residents, and taking into account local specificities—language, culture, politics, history, or religion—criteria sometimes more important than an arbitrarily drawn border. In Latin America, decentralisation took on the mantle of democracy. Discredited central autocratic regimes were replaced by decentralised elected governments and the authors of new constitutions. In Africa, the growing demand for local participation in decision-making turned decentralisation into a springboard toward political pluralism.

In Ethiopia, a special case, decentralisation appears as a response to pressures from regional or ethnic groups seeking to take part in political decisions and to control part of the administration. Decentralisation has therefore sometimes served to preserve national unity by granting more power or autonomy to regions. In East Asia, it is motivated by the improvement of service delivery to the population as a whole, the central state being unable to do so. It has also marked—such as in Uganda or Mozambique—the end of long civil wars, opening new political possibilities and enabling the participation of former warring factions in the administration of the state and in the delimitation of its authority.

A little theory

Whether voted in or imposed, driven by the people or by leaders, decentralisation exists and spreads in different forms, which Vincent Lemieux and his book on “decentralisation [and] public policies in the face of power” describes and catalogues. First, administrative decentralisation enables a territorially deconcentrated organisation that nevertheless remains dependent on the centre. Functional decentralisation enables an autonomous organisation of the peripheral body. Political decentralisation, for its part, entails low dependence on the centre because it is led by elected officials, who are more accountable to local electoral bases. Finally, structural decentralisation is one in which dependence on the centre varies according to public and private actors.

These categories reflect the polysemy of the term and the diversity of its applications and the sectors it mobilises. From defence to education and health services, not to mention transport, communication, and leisure, all are mobilised differently depending on the country. Whether practical, functional, or, on the contrary, cultural and expressive, this system—through the plurality of its applications—brings together certain trends, particularly favourable to the strengthening of democratic processes.

Decentralisation and democracy: the european case

Local representatives maintain direct contact with the population. Elected locally, their presence, their ongoing dialogue, and the concrete implementation of measures corresponding to the needs of a peripheral level of governance tend, according to an INSEE report dated 12 January 2018, to reduce the intensity of demands, the feeling that citizens are not being listened to, and thus to improve decision-making mechanisms within the territory.

Within the European Union, countries have gradually been integrating local democracy, which is regularly reformed and encourages the transfer of powers from the central state to local authorities. Some, with a strong tradition of a unitary and centralised state, such as France, have implemented vigorous decentralisation policies, as illustrated by the transfers of powers to territorial collectivities in 1988 and by the more recent first article of the French Constitution revised in 2003. Other countries, such as Germany, a federal state, value regional exchanges within the framework of composite states.

Divided into 16 Länder, Germany has low fiscal autonomy, counterbalanced by increased public spending within the state’s functional decentralisation. As for “German-style co-management,” it increasingly seeks to ensure the distribution of resources among the federal states. Belgium pushes this logic to its extreme. The constitutional revisions of the Belgian federal state in 2012 and 2014 grant part of decision-making power to various bodies that exercise authority autonomously and, in fields specific to them, effectively replace the federal government and parliament.

The african perspective

In order not to make Europe and the West the centre of decentralisation considerations, the KIMUNU report of the 9th edition of Africités, published in 2022, takes stock of this process on the African continent. It explains how, in light of these forty years of valuing territorial policies, decentralisation has become a major feature of Africa’s institutional landscape. Free administration at regional, provincial, or local level is increasingly synonymous with financial autonomy and legal recognition.

The principle of subsidiarity, an essential element of decentralisation policies, assigns responsibility for public action to the smallest entity capable of handling and resolving it, regardless of the sector concerned. The 14,000 African local authorities—“districts,” “urban councils,” or “town houses”—are spread across 30 million km² of territory, with 5 regions in Togo, 8 in Guinea, and 27 in Chad. On this continent as well, decentralisation has reduced the frequency and intensity of revolts and demonstrations of popular discontent, despite the developmental challenges these countries may face. Better administration—and above all better use of resources—strengthens democratic processes, and effective, targeted public action can even turn the migration issue into a lever for the development of intermediate cities.

A 21st-century challenge : between environment and sustainable development

Beyond its practical efficiency, which urban planners’ and economists’ reports do not fail to applaud, decentralisation is presented by activists as the solution to the demographic and environmental challenges awaiting humanity in the coming decades. If Greta Thunberg held up a sign encouraging decentralisation at the climate march of 14 March 2020 in Paris, activists and writers go further in this environmental struggle. Writer Ernest Callenbach had already published, in 1975, his science-fiction novel Ecotopia, in which certain states on the American West Coast withdraw from the world and gradually become independent. Cities of fewer than 15,000 inhabitants are evenly distributed across the territory; short supply chains are promoted; and legal, health, and education services are fully decentralised, with schools—even the most prestigious—self-managed. In this still fictional world of degrowth and political ecology, the author places decentralisation at the centre of the mechanisms of his utopia.

More realistic and more concrete this time, a socialist op-ed published in Le Monde in 2020 outlined, in several points, the logic of a centralised state. Required to focus on essential and limited missions defined by the constitution, the state must apply subsidiarity and local adaptation of norms, a logic incompatible with a strong and centralised state (1). It must also finance local authorities and reduce the inequalities between them (2), and encourage local consumption choices, both in food and in energy (3). This list of demands also calls for improvements in public transport, inspired more by a mosaic than by a star whose centre contains all interests (4), and for a renewal of specialised inter-municipal or inter-regional functions (5). In short, decentralising means bringing citizens closer to public action, and public services closer to citizens.

Political ideal or loss of national unity?

Decentralisation makes it possible and encourages the emergence of new local services. Promoted by some as a political system necessary for equitable and effective development, it enables a certain economic redistribution, facilitates taxation and participation in public policies, and responds more precisely to citizens’ demands and needs by giving them a place and a voice. A more advanced French decentralisation would allow Mayotte or Martinique—overseas territories neglected by Macron’s policies—to regain a place within the sphere of political attention.

The “diagonal of emptiness” might no longer be one, and the issue of medical deserts could be resolved. Yet its critics identify negative aspects. Pushed to its extreme, its logic undermines the image of national unity and causes the country’s borders to lose their primary meaning. Difficulties in implementing stabilisation policies would deepen public debt by almost doubling state expenditure. How can allocations to the poorest regions be managed and ensured to be fair and just? How, without a central decision-making nerve centre, can diplomatic and international relations be managed? Would each region then have its own embassy?

Neither good nor bad, decentralisation above all reflects a global political trend that consists—more or less quickly and to varying degrees—in becoming aware of the challenges of the century ahead. More than what it is, decentralisation is illustrated in what it enables. It is one of the rare examples where the political and the economic can serve the same end. Political objectives (greater responsiveness of elected officials and citizen political participation at the local level) can coincide with economic objectives (better decisions regarding the use of public resources and an increased willingness to pay for services provided).