Descentralización y Gobiernos Subnacionales: Transparencia y rendición de cuentas

The standard narrative to explain the evolution of roles filled by city managers suggests that managers originally served as administrative technicians who carried out the policy directives of city councils, but, over time, they became more involved in policy advice and community leadership. This article documents enduring involvement in policy and the recent expansion of community leadership, analyzing definitions of the manager's roles offered by practitioners and scholars since the beginning of the city manager profession 100 years ago. In addition, measurements of the manager's role performance at various points in time are examined, along with trends in the preparation of managers and the context in which they work. Ignoring the evidence that the policy role is integral to professional management can lead to unfounded questions about the legitimacy of city and county managers and impairs our understanding of the council-manager form of government and political–administrative relations.

This article identifies the ‘menu of options’ available to national governments as they seek to re-assert the centre’s prerogatives in the aftermath of decentralisation. These include policy strategies, bureaucratic strategies, institutional strategies and societal strategies, each of which has afforded opportunities for the centre to reclaim the role of protagonist that it lost as a result of decentralisation. Illustrated through the use of examples from across Latin America, our survey of these options shows that, short of outright recentralisation, national politicians and bureaucrats have been highly creative in their search for strategies to re-centre politics.

Bolivia decentralized in an effort to deepen democracy, improve public services, and make government more accountable. Unlike many countries, Bolivia succeeded. Over the past generation, public investment shifted dramatically toward primary services and resource distribution became far more equitable, partly due to the creation of new local governments. Many municipalities responded to decentralization with transparent, accountable government, yet others suffered ineptitude, corruption, or both. Why? Jean-Paul Faguet combines broad econometric data with deep qualitative evidence to investigate the social underpinnings of governance. He shows how the interaction of civic groups and business interests determines the quality of local decision making.

In order to understand decentralization, Faguet argues, we must understand governance from the ground up. Drawing on his findings, he offers an evaluation of the potential benefits of decentralization and recommendations for structuring successful reform.

Throughout the world, diverse countries are implementing programs of decentralization as a means of promoting both democratic and developmental objectives. Unfortunately, however, scholarship has yet to offer a comprehensive framework within which to assess and reform central-local relations. This article seeks to overcome the "division of labor" that has long separated analyses of administrative and political structures, and to provide stronger conceptual vocabulary for describing and analyzing the complexities of centralization and decentralization in both administration and politics. After developing two distinct continua of administrative and political centralization/decentralization, the paper then combines them in a single matrix able to highlight the wide range of strategies and outcomes that emerge from the complex interplay of the two spheres. Depending on where a country lies within the matrix, it is argued, strategies of decentralization may do more harm than good. Strategies of devolution are especially problematic in settings with strong local bosses, and should never be attempted without careful analysis of the preexisting character of central-local ties.